Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research
The title of the book makes clear its scope and content. Approaches are distinguished from frameworks. Both are specified explicitly, including the relations between them. Both comprise the following types of approach and framework: innovation; art; craft; applied; science and engineering.
The book presents an ‘approach-and-framework’ response to the HCI research challenge of the increased growth and diversification of HCI. The aim is to decrease theory fragmentation, so to increase HCI discipline progress. Publication of such a research textbook is timely. It offers a clear alternative to the current ‘design-an-application-for-a-good-user-experience’ line of design practice research.
The book’s importance lies in its recognition of the current differences between the many types of HCI approach to research, appearing in the literature. Its strength lies in the need for frameworks to apply to such approaches. Together they support researchers building on, and validating, each other’s work in the interest of greater HCI discipline progress..
The HCI research book, whose ideas are promoted by this site, is entitled ‘Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research’. The author is John Long. The publisher is Cambridge University Press (CUP). The link to the latter’s website for the book is – www.cambridge.org/9781108719070
This research textbook, designed for young Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers beginning their careers, surveys the research models and methods in use today and offers a general framework to bring together the disparate concepts
John Long is Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Engineering at University College London, where he was previously Professor of Cognitive Ergonomics and Director of the Ergonomics and HCI Unit.
ABOUT THE BOOK
PREFACE. Read
The title of the book ‘Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research’ makes clear its scope and content. The latter concerns both what it is and what it is not. It is about human-computer interaction (HCI) research, not just about HCI in general. However, both subjects are addressed. This distinguishes it from other attempts to address the two subjects, either as separate or as undifferentiated topics. Here, approaches are distinguished from frameworks. However, both are specified explicitly, including the relations between them.
The book presents an ‘approach-and-framework’ response to the HCI research challenge of addressing the increased growth and diversification of HCI. The response supports researchers building on and validating each other’s work. The aim is to decrease theory fragmentation and so to increase HCI discipline progress. The contrast is with HCI community progress, which continues apace.
It is a book for researchers, especially young researchers, and so might properly be described as a research textbook. In this respect, it is unique and different from other textbooks, aimed primarily at supporting the HCI teaching of undergraduate and masters students. This difference is reflected in its ‘how to do research’ aspects, exemplified by the research practice assignments. In particular, the research design scenarios, presented at the end of chapters. For this reason, the text is organised and written to support application of the approaches and frameworks proposed. Encouraging researchers to internalise the latter is part of that support. This is in addition to supporting researchers in their ability to understand and to reason about the approaches and frameworks. Clarificatory notes are presented at the end of each chapter.
Although intended primarily for researchers, starting their careers in academia or industry, the textbook is also suitable for graduate and post-graduate students being introduced to the world of research. It also aims to support the supervisors teaching them about HCI research and its relation to HCI more generally. In particular, the textbook supports students learning how approaches and frameworks contribute to the planning and conduct of research in practice.
It is a good time to publish such a research textbook. It offers a clear alternative to the current ‘design-an-application-for-a-good-user-experience’ line of design practice research. The latter, whatever its strengths, notably fails to address the HCI research challenge identified earlier, concerning poor discipline progress. It might even be said to contribute to that challenge by the very number of frameworks and theories, which it has helped to engender. Indeed, it is hard, on occasion, to distinguish such design practice research from HCI design practice itself. The textbook’s strength lies in its recognition of the current differences between the many types of HCI approach to research, appearing in the literature. Its strength also lies in the need for frameworks to apply to such approaches and so to support researchers building on and validating each other’s work.
AUTHOR. Read
The author feels able to write such a research textbook. The conception, underlying the proposed relationship between approaches and frameworks for HCI research, was developed by colleagues, PhD students and himself during their time at University College London. The conception has been used, then and since, for MSc and PhD student teaching, also for both academic and commercial research. The latter provides an extensive source of illustrations for the book together with the HCI research literature more generally.
READERSHIP. Read
As indicated, the textbook is primarily for young HCI researchers and their supervisors from both engineering and science academics to research and development innovators. The book is also for researchers in related disciplines seeking ways to contribute to HCI research. Such disciplines include information science, applied psychology, computer science, informatics, software engineering and social science. Researchers are expected to use the textbook for detailed and ongoing reference in support of their work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Read
The book is offered as an affectionate, if somewhat belated, festschrift for colleagues and PhD students at the EU/UCL Unit, whose research contributions have made it possible.
ENDORSEMENTS. Read
‘In a dynamic field such as HCI/user experience studies, there is seldom time to stop and think about the wider research enterprise. John Long’s book will be an invaluable resource and stimulus to encourage researchers to think more deeply about what they are doing and how they are doing it.’ Philip Barnard, Honorary Member, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge University
‘Written by one of the founders of British HCI, this book is a call to action for a more rigorous, unified and cumulative discipline. In doing so, John Long equips the next generation of HCI researchers with the conceptual tools they will need to ensure the future of the field is in good hands.’ Abigail Sellen, Microsoft Research
‘This insightful book presents a General Framework to discuss and assess specific HCI research frameworks. This unavoidable debate is necessary to enable the HCI research community to progress and develop into a mature discipline. This fundamental book is written in a very concise and fair manner. I strongly recommend reading this book and learn from one of the best.’ Matthias Rauterberg, Eindhoven University of Technology.
CHAPTER LISTING. Read
Preface
Chapter 1. Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research
Chapter 2. Approaches to HCI Research
Chapter 3. Frameworks for HCI ResearchChapter
Chapter 4. Innovation Approach and Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 5. Art Approach and Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 6. Craft Approach and Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 7. Applied Approach and Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 8. Science Approach and Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 9. Engineering Approach and Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 10. General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 11. Validating General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
Chapter 12. Assessing General Framework against Other HCI Frameworks
Chapter 13. Assessing General Framework against HCI Theories
Chapter 14. Methodological Component for General Framework
Chapter 15. Case-studies for General Framework
Chapter 16. Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research – Lessons Learned and Lessons Remaining
SECTION LISTING. Read
Chapter 1. Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research
1.1 Why HCI?
1.2 State of HCI
1.3 State of HCI Research
1.4 Challenges for HCI Research
1.5 Aims of Research Textbook
1.6 HCI Research Approaches and Frameworks
1.7 Research Practice Assignment
1.8 Chapter Endnote
Chapter 2. Approaches to HCI Research
2.1 Approach
2.2 Approaches to HCI Research
2.3 Current Approaches to HCI Research
2.4 Research Practice Assignment
2.5 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 3. Frameworks for HCI Research
3.1 Framework
3.2 Framework for HCI
3.3 Framework for a Discipline
3.4 Core Framework for a Discipline of HCI including HCI Research
3.5 Lower-Level Framework for a Discipline of HCI including HCI Research
3.6 HCI Discipline and HCI Research Illustration
3.7 Research Practice Assignment
3.8 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 4. Innovation Approach and Framework for HCI Research
4.1 Innovation Approach to HCI Research
4.2 Example of an Innovation Approach to HCI Research
4.3 Innovation Framework for HCI Research
4.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research
4.3.2 Specific Innovation Framework for HCI Research
4.3.3 Innovation Design Research Exemplar
4.3.4 Lower-Level Innovation Framework
4.3.4.1 Innovation Application
4.3.4.2 Innovation Interactive System
4.3.4.3 Innovation Interactive System Performance.
4.3.5 Example Application of an Innovation Framework to an Innovation Approach to HCI Research
4.4 Research Practice Assignment
4.4.1 General
4.4.2 Research Design Scenarios
Chapter 5. Art Approach and Framework for HCI Research
5.1 Art Approach to HCI Research
5.2 Example of an Art Approach to HCI Research
5.3 Art Framework for HCI Research
5.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research
5.3.2 Specific Art Framework for HCI Research
5.3.3 Art Design Research Exemplar
5.3.4 Lower-Level Art Framework
5.3.4.1 Art Application
5.3.4.2 Art Interactive System
5.3.4.3 Art Interactive System Performance.
5.3.5 Example Application of an Art Framework to an Art Approach to HCI Research
5.4 Research Practice Assignment
5.4.1 General
5.4.2 Research Design Scenarios
Chapter 6. Craft Approach and Framework for HCI Research
6.1 Craft Approach to HCI Research
6.2 Example of a Craft Approach to HCI Research
6.3 Craft Framework for HCI Research
6.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research
6.3.2 Specific Craft Framework for HCI Research
6.3.3 Craft Design Research Exemplar
6.3.4 Lower-Level Craft Framework
6.3.4.1 Craft Application
6.3.4.2 Craft Interactive System
6.3.4.3 Craft Interactive System Performance.
6.3.5 Example Application of a Craft Framework to a Craft Approach to HCI Research
6.4 Research Practice Assignment
6.4.1 General
6.4.2 Research Design Scenarios
Chapter 7. Applied Approach and Framework for HCI Research
7.1 Applied Approach to HCI Research
7.2 Example of an Applied Approach to HCI Research
7.3 Applied Framework for HCI Research
7.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research
7.3.2 Specific Applied Framework for HCI Research
7.3.3 Applied Framework Design Research Exemplar
7.3.4 Lower-Level Applied Framework
7.3.4.1 Applied Application
7.3.4.2 Applied Interactive System
7.3.4.3 Applied Interactive System Performance.
7.3.5 Example Application of an Applied Framework to an Applied Approach to HCI Research
7.4 Research Practice Assignment
7.4.1 General
7.4.2 Research Design Scenarios
Chapter 8. Science Approach and Framework for HCI Research
8.1 Science Approach to HCI Research
8.2 Example of a Science Approach to HCI Research
8.3 Science Framework for HCI Research
8.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research
8.3.2 Specific Science Framework for HCI Research
8.3.3 Science Framework Design Research Exemplar
8.3.4 Lower-Level Science Framework
8.3.4.1 Science Application
8.3.4.2 Science Interactive System
8.3.4.3 Science Interactive System Performance.
8.3.5 Example Application of a Science Framework to a Science Approach to HCI Research
8.4 Research Practice Assignment
8.4.1 General
8.4.2 Research Design Scenarios
Chapter 9. Engineering Approach and Framework for HCI Research
9.1 Engineering Approach to HCI Research
9.2 Example of an Engineering Approach to HCI Research
9.3 Engineering Framework for HCI Research
9.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research
9.3.2 Specific Engineering Framework for HCI Research
9.3.3 Engineering Framework Design Research Exemplar
9.3.4 Lower-Level Engineering Framework
9.3.4.1 Engineering Application
9.3.4.2 Engineering Interactive System
9.3.4.3 Engineering Interactive System Performance.
9.3.5 Example Application of an Engineering Framework to an Engineering Approach to HCI Research
9.4 Research Practice Assignment
9.4.1 General
9.4.2 Research Design Scenarios
Chapter 10. General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
10.1 General Approach to HCI Research
10.2 General Framework for HCI Research
10.2.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research
10.2.2 General Framework for HCI Research
10.2.3 General Framework Design Research Exemplar for HCI Research
10.2.4 Lower-Level General Framework for HCI Research
10.2.4.1 Application
10.2.4.2 Interactive System
10.2.4.3 Interactive System Performance.
10.3 Generic Framework Critiques
10.4 Research Practice Assignment
10.4.1 General
10.4.2 Research Design Scenario
10.5 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 11. Validating General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
11.1 Validation
11.2 Validation of HCI Knowledge Acquired by HCI Research
11.3 Validation of HCI Knowledge Acquired by HCI Research Approaches
11.4 Validation of HCI Knowledge Supported by General Framework for HCI Research
11.5 Research Practice Assignment
11.5.1 General
11.5.2 Research Design Scenarios
11.6 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 12. Assessing General Framework against Other HCI Frameworks
12.1 General
12.2 General Framework Assessment
12.3 Assessment of General Framework for HCI Research against other Frameworks
12.3.1 Morton, Barnard, Hammond and Long (1979) Interacting with the Computer: a Framework.
12.3.2 Card, Moran and Newell (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction.
12.3.3 Shneiderman (1983) Direct Manipulation: a Step beyond Programming Languages.
12.3.4 Long (1987) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction
12.3.5 Long and Dowell (1989) Conceptions for the Discipline of HCI: Craft, Applied Science, and Engineering. Dowell and Long (1989) Towards a Conception for an Engineering Discipline of Human Factors.
12.3.6 Barnard (1991) Bridging between Basic Theories and the Artefacts of Human-Computer Interaction.
12.3.7 Kuutti (1996) Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research.
12.3.8 Olson and Olson (2000) Distance Matters.
12.3.9 Rauterberg (2006) HCI as an Engineering Discipline: To Be or not To Be?
12.3.10 Carroll, Kellogg and Rosson (1991) The Task-Artefact Cycle.
Carroll (2010) Conceptualising a Possible Discipline of Human-Computer Interaction.
12.4 Dissemination of HCI Frameworks for Research
12.4.1 Dissemination General
12.4.2 Dissemination of HCI Frameworks for Research
12.4.3 Dissemination Success
12.4.4 Factors Contributing to the Dissemination Success of Individual HCI Frameworks for Research
12.4.4.1 Well-Disseminated HCI Frameworks for Research
12.4.4.2 Less Well-Disseminated HCI Frameworks for Research
12.4.5 Dissemination Success and the General Framework
12.5 Summary and Conclusions
12.6 Research Practice Assignment
12.6.1 General
12.6.2 Research Design Scenarios
12.7 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 13. Assessing General Framework against HCI Theories
13.1 General
13.2 General Framework Assessment
13.3 Assessment of General Framework for HCI Research against HCI Theories
13.3.1 Extended Cognitive Theories
13.3.1.1 External Cognition Theory
13.3.1.2 Distributed Cognition Theory
13.3.1.3 Ecological Cognition Theory
13.3.2 Social Theories
13.3.2.1 Situated Action Theory
13.3.2.2 CSCW Theory
13.3.3 Miscellaneous Theories
13.3.3.1 Ethnography Theory
13.3.3.2 Grounded Theory
13.3.3.3 Design Theory
13.3.3.4 Human Values Theory
13.3.3.5 Technology as Experience Theory
13.3.3.6 Critical Theory
13.3.3.7 In-the-Wild Theory
13.4 Summary and Conclusions
13.5 Research Practice Assignment
13.5.1 General
13.5.2 Research Design Scenarios
13.6 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 14. Methodological Component for General Framework
14.1 Methodological Framework Requirement
14.2 Meeting Methodological Framework Requirement
14.2.1 User-Centred Design Methods
14.2.2 Structured Analysis and Design Methods
14.2.3 Research Structured Analysis and Design Methods
14.3 Research Practice Assignment
14.3.1 General
14.3.2 Research Design Scenarios
14.4 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 15. Case-studies for General Framework
15.1 Case-study Requirement
15.2 Meeting Case-study Requirement
15.2.1 Acquisition Case-studies
15.2.1.1 Framework Acquisition Case-studies
15.2.1.2 Knowledge Acquisition Case-studies
15.2.2 Validation Case-studies
15.2.2.1 Framework Validation Case-studies
15.2.2.2 Knowledge Validation Case-studies
15.3 Research Practice Assignment
15.3.1 General
15.3.2 Research Design Scenario
15.4 Chapter Endnotes
Chapter 16. Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research – Lessons Learned and Remaining
16.1 Lessons Learned and Lessons Remaining
16.2 Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research
16.3 Approaches to HCI Research
16.4 Frameworks for HCI Research
16.5 Specific Frameworks for HCI Research
16.6 General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
16.7 Validating General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
16.8 Assessing General Framework against Other HCI Frameworks
16.9 Assessing General Framework against HCI Theories
16.10 Methodological Component for General Framework
16.11 Case-studies for General Framework
16.12 Conclusion
16.13 Research Practice Assignment
16.14 Chapter Endnotes
CHAPTER EXCERPT Read
Chapter 1. Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research
Summary
The chapter introduces Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and HCI research and describes their current states. Challenges to HCI research are identified and the aims of the book presented. The concepts of approach and framework are outlined, together with their relations. The chapter sets the scene for the following two chapters, which address respectively approaches and frameworks separately and in greater depth.
1.1 Why HCI?
HCI, as a description of the field of human-computer interaction, is more established and general than alternative descriptors. For this reason, it is retained here. HCI continues to be in a permanent state of change. As a result, no description of the field is excluded. HCI is interpreted inclusively and is considered to comprise – ease of use/usability, applied psychology, engineering, human-centred design, cognitive engineering, interaction design, user experience (UX) design, technocratic art, graphic design, digital interaction, along with others. [1]
Given the growth and diversity of new computing technology, however, HCI is understood as human-computing technology interaction, rather than just human-computer interaction. The latter term is more associated with personal computing. The term HCI, however, has been retained, as having greater currency in the HCI research literature at this time. This is in contrast to others, such as UX design and digital interaction design, more favoured by the practitioner community.
1.2 State of HCI
Since its inception in the late ’70s, HCI has grown and diversified extensively and continues to do so. This growth and diversification constitutes a challenge for HCI research.
A roughly historical perspective suggests the following development of human, interaction and computing technology scopes. The human scope has increased to include – more abilities, ages, social classes, communities, societies and cross national communication groups. The interaction scope has increased to include – keying, pointing/clicking, drawing, speaking, touching, gesturing, smelling, electro-mediated communicating, tasting, whole body moving and electrode-conducted thinking. The computing technology scope has increased to include – portability, distributed social media communicability, artificial intelligence, autonomous devices, implantability, inter-connectivity, robots, wearability, mobile and ubiquitous digital technology. Together they constitute the increase in the scope and diversification of HCI and the challenge for HCI research. [2]
1.3 State of HCI Research
It is assumed here, that HCI research of whatever kind acquires and validates HCI knowledge as design knowledge. Or at least as knowledge, associated with, derived from or potentially applicable to design. Different assumptions would require different proposals to those made here. Some alternative and additional assumptions, however, are reflected in the differences between the specific frameworks proposed (see 4-9.3). However, while retaining these differences, the specific frameworks are all based on a common core framework. In this way, the general overall assumption is made compatible with different underlying assumptions. This compatibility is essential for researchers to build on and to validate each other’s work. Such compatibility is almost entirely absent from current HCI research. It has been absent historically from its beginning. This is the case both for its frameworks (see 12.3) and for its theories (see 13.3).
HCI research has responded to the increase in the scope and diversification of HCI with growth and diversification of its own. Following the HCI literature, the latter can be considered to take two forms – fields and theories. This increase in growth and diversification of HCI research constitutes an on-going challenge.
First, is the growth and diversification of the fields of HCI. For example, Rogers (2012) distinguishes – 7 academic disciplines, 5 design practices and 7 interdisciplinary overlapping fields. This constitutes 19 fields of HCI in all.
Second, is the growth and diversification of types of HCI theory. For example, Rogers (2012) distinguishes – 3 classical, 9 modern and 5 contemporary types of theory. This constitutes 17 types of HCI theory in all. [3]
1.4 Challenges for HCI Research
The growth and diversification of HCI research has led, in the absence of consensus among researchers about both, to two outcomes. First, to a failure to build on and to validate each other’s work. Second, to a fragmentation of both HCI fields and theories. The challenge for HCI research, then, is to address the growth and diversification of HCI and of the associated research, while decreasing the fragmentation of fields and theories. The latter requires researchers to build on and to validate each other’s work and so to increase consensus. The result would be to increase HCI discipline progress.
A number of authors, while celebrating the growth and diversification of HCI and its community, have analysed and documented the lack of HCI discipline progress (Long and Dowell, 1989; Newman, 1994; Rogers, 2012). For example, Newman claims that only 30 percent of HCI research reports enhancements in modelling techniques, solutions, and design tools. This is against 90 percent for the discipline of engineering more generally. The remainder of HCI research describes radical solutions, not derived from incremental solutions of the same problem. Also included are experience and/or heuristics, gained from studies of radical solutions. Radical solutions and experience and/or heuristics characterise the ‘design-an-application-for-a-good-user-experience’ line of HCI design practice research, identified earlier. Analysis of more recent research, reported in the literature or presented at conferences, such as CHI (Computer-Human Interaction), indicate the situation as being unchanged, since Newman’s findings. If anything, the percentage of radical solutions and experience and/or heuristics continues to increase (Dix, 2010; Long, 2010).
1.5 Aims of Research Textbook
The aim of the research textbook is to propose a way of meeting the challenge to HCI research, outlined in the previous section. The proposal consists of identifying and grouping common approaches to HCI research, reported in the literature. On the basis of an existing HCI conception, a core framework for HCI, including HCI research, is proposed. The latter is particularised to create a specific framework for HCI research for each approach identified. The specific frameworks are then generalised to create a General Framework for HCI research. The latter is assessed against other HCI frameworks and HCI theories.
The book illustrates and then shows researchers in some detail how their own approaches may be identified and new approaches created. The application of the frameworks to the approaches is intended to support the explicit specification of both. This application, in turn, better supports researchers building on and validating each other’s work. The aim is to increase discipline progress, as required by Newman (1995) – see earlier. Progress here includes the acquisition of HCI discipline knowledge and the practices, which it supports. Also included is the validation of both by research. Following Kuhn (1970), discipline progress is to be contrasted with community progress. The latter refers to the cultural/social activities of the researchers, such as attending workshops and conferences, informal communications and the formation of interest groups in the manner of the CHI and other conferences.
1.6 HCI Research Approaches and Frameworks
Here, approaches and frameworks are defined as having the same scope – that of HCI research. However, frameworks are more rigorously specified. They are more complete, coherent and fit-for-purpose with respect to HCI research, than approaches. Included here are HCI research approaches, classified as – innovation, art, craft, applied, science and engineering. Each type of approach has an associated HCI research framework (see 4-9.3). Other types of HCI approach and framework could be created as required. The creation would follow the same process proposed here, as supported by the textbook’s research practice assignments, presented at the end of each chapter (see 15.3).
The frameworks, to be applied to the approaches, have a common basis in a conception for HCI, originally proposed respectively for the HCI discipline (Long and Dowell, 1989) and for the HCI design problem (Dowell and Long, 1989). Detailed reference to, and the importance of the relations between, this conception and the General Framework, proposed here are made throughout the book.
Conclusion
The chapter introduces HCI and HCI research in general. It describes both their current states and challenges, as they relate to the textbook and its aims. The concepts of approach and framework are outlined, together with their relations. The outline provides the necessary basis for the separate and respective address of approaches and frameworks in the following two chapters.
1.7 Research Practice Assignment
– Describe in writing the state of your research in terms of the state of HCI research, as presented in 1.3. If you have no research of your own at this time, select a suitable publication from the HCI literature.
– List the challenges to your (or other’s) research. How do they compare with the challenges, presented in 1.4?
– Evaluate how well your (or other’s) research meets your research challenges and those presented in 1.4?
– Identify what changes to your (or other’s) research might better meet your research challenges.
-Do you think the concept of challenge is useful in this assignment? If so, give your reasons. If not, suggest and justify an alternative concept motivating your (or other’s) research.
Hints and Tips
Difficult to get started?
– Try reading the chapter again, while at the same time thinking about how to describe your own research. Note similarities and differences between the two lines of thought, as you go along.
– Describe your research in its own terms, before attempting to apply those of 1.3.
Difficult to complete?
– Familiarise yourself with the major challenges to HCI research, identified in the HCI research literature, before attempting to address those in 1.4.
– Consider pseudonyms of challenge, before considering its utility and suggesting alternatives.
Test [4]
– List the titles of 1.1 to 1.4 explicitly, for example, in writing. Complete the sections very briefly from memory and in your own words.
– Propose a new and improved set of titles for 1.1 to 1.4.
– Complete the new 1.1 to 1.4 in your own words.
– Read and reflect on the chapter endnotes (see 1.8). Express your agreement/disagreement with them.
– Suggest improvements to the chapter endnotes with which you disagree.
1.8 Chapter Endnotes [5]
[1] Extended descriptions of these changes in information technology, constituting the growth and diversity of new computing technology, can be found in Harper, Rodden, Rogers and Sellen (2008). As stated, the chapter introduces HCI and HCI research in general. It describes their current states and challenges within a roughly historical perspective, as they relate to the textbook and its aims. Other general descriptors of the field include – cognitive ergonomics, software engineering and interface design. Other domain specific descriptors include – architectural informatics, medical applications, digital archives and library information technology. Cockton (2014) is a useful additional source for information on this point together with Rogers (2012).
[2] A more complete description of the scope and diversification of the state of HCI can be found in Harper et al. (2008) and Rogers, Sharp, and Preece (2011).[3] Following Rogers (2012), these 19 fields comprise:
– Academic Disciplines – ergonomics, psychology/cognitive science, design, informatics, engineering, computer science/ software engineering and social sciences.
– Design Practices – graphic design, product design, artist design, industrial design and film industry.
– Interdisciplinary Overlapping Fields – ubiquitous computing, human factors, cognitive engineering, human-computer interaction, cognitive ergonomics, computer-supported co-operative work and information systems.
[4] The Test encourages researchers to commit the approaches and frameworks to memory. Such internalisation facilitates their subsequent application. [5] Endnotes are preferred to footnotes, so as not to distract researchers trying to apply an approach or a framework. Also, to understand a particular piece of text. Chapter endnotes are preferred to book endnotes. The former are quicker to consult for researchers seeking to apply the approaches and frameworks presented.REFERENCES. Read
Atwood, M., Gray, W. and John, B. (1996) Project Ernestine: Analytic and Empirical Methods Applied to a Real World CHI Problem. In Rudisill, M., Lewis, C., Polson, P. and McKay, T. (Eds) Human Computer Interface Design: Success Stories, Emerging Methods and Real World Context, 101-121. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Bacon, C. and Fitzgerald, B. (2001) A Systematic Framework for the Field of Information Systems. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 32, (2): 46- 67.
Balaam, M., Comber, R., Jenkins, E., Sutton, S. and Garbett, A. (2015) FeedFinder: a Location-Mapping Mobile Application for Breastfeeding Women. In Proceedings CHI ’15, 33rd Annual ACM, 1709-1718. Republic of Korea: ACM.
Bannon, L. and Bødker, S. (1991) Encountering Artefacts in Use. In Carroll, J. (Ed) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, 27: 253. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bardzell, J. (2009) Interaction Criticism and Aesthetics. Proc. CHI’09, ACM, 2357–2366.
Bardzell, J., Bolter, J. and Lowgren, J. (2010) Interaction Criticism: Three Readings of an Interaction Design and What They Get Us. Interactions, 14.
Barnard, P. (1991) Bridging between Basic Theories and the Artifacts of Human-Computer Interaction in Designing Interaction, Carroll, J. (Ed). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barnard, P. and May, J. (1999) Representing Cognitive Activity in Complex Tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 14: 93–158.
Barnard, P., Hammond, N., Morton, J., Long, J. and Clark, I.A. (1981) Consistency and Compatibility in Human-Computer Dialogue. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15: 87-134.
Barnard, P., May, D., Duke, D. and Duce, D. (2000) Systems, Interactions and Macrotheory. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 7, (2): 222-262.
Bentley, R., Hughes J., Randall, D., Rodden, T., Sawyer, P., Sommerville, I. and Shapiro, D. (1992) Ethnographically-informed Systems Design for Air Traffic Control. Proc. of CSCW ’92, ACM, 123–129.
Blandford, A. (2013) Engineering Works: What is (and is not) ‘Engineering’ for Interactive Computer Systems. In EICS 2013 – Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems.
Brewster, S., Cawsey, A. and Cockton, G. (Eds) Proceedings INTERACT 99 (2), 25-26, Edinburgh, UK. Swindon. UK: British Computer Society.
Browne, D. (1994) STUDIO: STructured User-interface Design for Interaction Optimisation. International: Prentice Hall.
Buckingham Shum S. and Hammond, N. (1994) Delivering HCI Modelling to Designers: A Framework and Case Study of Cognitive Modelling. Interacting with Computers, 6 (3): 311-341.
Buckley, P. (1989) Expressing Research Findings to Have a Practical Influence on Design. In Long, J. and Whitefield, A. (Eds) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Card, S., Moran, T. and Newell, A. (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Carroll, J. (1995) Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. USA: Wiley.
Carroll, J. (2003) Introduction: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Human-Computer Interaction. In Carroll, J. (Ed) HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Carroll, J. (2010) Conceptualizing a Possible Discipline of Human-Computer Interaction. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 3-12.
Carroll, J., Kellog, W. and Rosson, M. (1991) The Task-Artifact Cycle in Designing Interaction. In Designing Interaction Carroll, J. (Ed) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cockton, G. (2006) Designing Worth is Worth Designing. Proc. NORDCHI, ACM, 165–174.
Cockton, G. (2014) A Critical, Creative UX Community: CRUF. Journal of Usability Studies, 10 (1): 1-16.
Cummaford, S. (2000) Validating Effective Design Knowledge for Re-use: HCI Engineering Design Principles. In CHI ’00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press.
Cummaford, S. and Long, J. (1998) Towards a Conception of HCI Engineering Design Principles. In Proceedings of Ninth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE9), Limerick, Ireland.
Cummaford, S, and Long, J. (1999) Costs Matrix: Systematic Comparisons of Competing Design Solutions. In Proc. INTERACT 99, Volume II, Edinburgh UK, 30 Aug-3 Sept 1999. Brewster, S., Cawsey, A. and Cockton, G. (Eds) Vol. II, 25-26. Swindon, UK: British Computer Society.
Debenard, S. and Crevits, I. (2000) Projet Amanda – Note Intermediaire, 1.2 CENA/N12v1/.
Denley, I. and Long, J. (2001) Multi-Disciplinary Practice in Requirements Engineering: Problems and Criteria for Support. In Blandford, A., Vanderdonkt, J. and Gray, P. (Eds) People and Computers XV – Interaction without Frontiers. Joint proceedings of HCI 2001 and IHM 2001. London: Springer Verlag.
De Souza, C., Barbosa, S. and Prates, R. (2001) A Semiotic Engineering Approach to HCI, in Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 01: 55-56 ACM Press.
Dinu, V. and Nadkarni, P. (2007)Guidelines for the Effective Use of Entity-Attribute-Value Modeling for Biomedical Databases. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(11–12): 769–779.
Dix, A. (2010) Human-Computer Interactions: a Stable Discipline, a Nascent Science and the Growth of the Long Tail. Interacting with Computers, 22(1): 13-27.
Dowell, J. (1998) Formulating the Cognitive Design Problem of Air Traffic Management. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49 (5): 743-766.
Dowell J. and Long J. (1989) Towards a Conception for an Engineering Discipline of Human Factors. Ergonomics, 32 (11): 1513-1535.
Dowell, J. and Long, J. (1998) Target Paper: Conception of the Cognitive Engineering Design Problem. Ergonomics, 41, (2): 126-139.
Edmonds, E. (2018) The Art of Interaction: What HCI Can Learn from Interactive Art. UK: Morgan & Claypool.
Engestrøm, Y. (1990) Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory. Helsinki : Orienta- Konsulti.
Gibson, J.J. (1966) The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Gibson, J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Gilligan, P. and Long, J. (1984) Videotex Technology: an Overview with Special Reference to Transaction Processing as an Interactive Service. Behaviour and Information Technology, 3: 41-71.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) Discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Aldine.
Gonzalez, V. (2006) The Nature of Managing Multiple Activities in the Workplace. Doctoral Dissertation in Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine.
Gregoriades, A. and Sutcliffe, A. (2005) Scenario-based Assessments of Nonfunctional Requirements, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(5): 392-409.
Harper, R., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y. and Sellen, A. (2008) Being Human – Human-computer Interaction in the Year 2020. Cambridge, UK: Microsoft Research Ltd.
Harris, J. and Henderson, A. (1999) A Better Mythology for System Design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 99, ACM Press, 88-95.
Heath, C. and Luff, P. (1991) Collaborative Activity and Technological Design: Task Coordination in London Underground Control Rooms. In Proc. of the Second European Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 65–80.
Hill, B. (2010) Diagnosing Co-ordination Problems in the Emergency Management Response to Disasters. Interacting with Computers, 22(1): 43-55.
Hill, B. and Long, J. (1996) A Preliminary Model of the Planning and Control of the Combined Response to Disaster. In Proceedings of ECCE 8, Granada, Spain, 57-62.
Hill, B., Long, J., Smith, W. and Whitefield, A. (1993) Planning for Multiple Task Work – an Analysis of a Medical Reception Worksystem. In Proceedings of INTERCHI’93, Amsterdam.
Hill, B., Long, J., Smith, W. and Whitefield, A. (1995) A Model of Medical Reception – The Planning and Control of Multiple Task Work. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9 (S1): S81-S114.
Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
John, B. and Gray, W. (1995) CPM-GOMS: an Analysis Method for Tasks with Parallel Activities. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI’95, ACM.
Kirsh, D. (2001) The Context of Work. HCI 6(2): 306–322.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuutti, K. (1996) Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research. In Nardi, B. (Ed) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, 17-44. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lambie, T. and Long, J. (2002) Engineering CSCW. In Blay-Fonarino, M., Pinna-Derry, A., Schmidt, K. and Zarate, P. (Eds), Co-operative Systems Design: a Challenge of the Mobility Age. Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo, Washington: IOS Press.
Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987) Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11: 65–99.
Leontiev, A. (1978) Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leontiev, A.N. (1989) The Problem of Activity in the History of Soviet Psychology. Soviet Psychology 27(1): 22–39.
Life, A. (2018) User Centred Design. UK: CIEHF.
Lim K. and Long, J. (1994) The MUSE Method for Usability Engineering. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Long, J. (1987) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human Computer Interaction. In Psychology at Work, Warr, P. (Ed). England: Penguin.
Long, J. (1989) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction: an Introduction. In Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction, Long, J. and Whitefield, A. (Eds) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Long, J. (1997) Research and the Design of Human-Computer Interactions or ‘What Happened to Validation?’ In Proceedings of HCI’97, Bristol, 223-243.
Long, J. (2002) HCI is more than the Usability of WEB Pages: a Domain Approach. In Amadeo, G. (Ed)
Proceedings of Third USIHC/Fourth Ergodesign Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Long, J. (2010) Some Celebratory Reflections on a Celebratory HCI Festschrift, Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 68-71.
Long, J. and Brostoff, S. (2002) Validating Design Knowledge in the Home: a Successful Case-study of Dementia Care. In Reed, D., Baxter, G. and Blythe, M. (Eds) EACE ’12. France: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics.
Long, J. and Buckley, P. (1984) Transaction Processing using Videotex or: Shopping on PRESTEL. In Proceedings of Interact ’84: First IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Shackel B. (Ed) London: IEE.
Long, J. and Dowell, J. (1989) Conceptions of the Discipline of HCI: Craft, Applied Science and Engineering. In Sutcliffe, A. and Macaulay, L. (Eds), People and Computers V. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Long, J. and Hill, B. (2005) Validating Diagnostic Design Knowledge for Air Traffic Management: a Case-study. In Marmaras, N., Kontogiannis, T. and Nathanael, D. (Eds) EACE ’05. Greece: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics.
Long, J. and Monk, A. Applying an Engineering Framework to Telemedical Research: a Successful
Case-study. In Khalid, H. and Helander, M. (Eds) Proceedings of 7th International
Conference on Working with Computers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Long, J. and Monk, A. (2002) Applying a Cognitive Engineering Framework to Research: a Successful Case-Study? In McCabe, P. (Ed) Contemporary Ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis.
Long, J. and Stork, A. (1994) A Specific Planning and Control Design Problem in the Home: Rationale and a Case Study. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Home-Oriented Informatics, Telematics and Automation, Amager, Denmark.
Long, J. and Timmer, P. (2000) Design Problems for Research: What We Can Learn from ATM-like Micro-worlds. In Proceedings of Travail Humain Workshop, Bretigny, France.
Long, J. and Timmer, P. (2001) Design Problems for Cognitive Ergonomics Research: What We can Learn from ATM-like Microworlds. Le Travail Humain, 64 (3): 197-222.
Long, J. and Whitefield, A. (1989) (Eds) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Long, J., Hammond, N., Barnard, P., Morton, J. and Clark, I. (1980) New Technology in the Work-place: a Method for Identifying underlying Variables. In Proceedings of Symposium on Analysis and Health Evaluation of the Workplace, Portoroz, Yugoslavia.
Long, J., Hammond, N., Barnard, P., Morton J. and Clark, I. (1982) Introducing the Interactive Computer at Work: the User’s Views. Behaviour and Information Technology, 2: 39-106.
Lowgren. J. and Stolterman, E. (2004) Thoughtful Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mancini, C., van der Linden, J. and Bryan, A. (2012) Exploring Interspecies Sensemaking: Dog Tracking Semiotics and Multispecies Ethnography, UbiComp. Pittsburgh, USA: ACM.
McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. (2004) Technology as Experience. USA: MIT Press.
McGrath, J. (1991) Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups, Small Group Research 22(2): 147–174.
Middlemass, J., Stork, A and Long, J. (1999) Successful Case Study and Partial Validation of MUSE, a Structured Method for Usability Engineering. In Sasse, M. and Johnson, C. (Eds) Proc. INTERACT 99, Edinburgh UK (I): 399-407. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Middlemass, J. and Long, J. (2005) A General Model of Human Factors Structured Analysis and Design Methods.
In Bust, P. and McCabe, P. (Eds) Contemporary Ergonomics, 361-365. London: Taylor and Francis.
Morton, J., Barnard, P., Hammond, N. and Long, J. (1979) Interacting with the Computer: a Framework. In Boutmy, E. and Danthine, A., (Eds), Teleinformatics ’79. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Nardi, B. (1996) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (Ed) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nardi, B. (2002) Coda and Response to Christine Halverson. CSCW:269–275.
Nardi, B. and Kapetelinin, V. (2012) Activity Theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.
Newman W. (1984) A Preliminary Analysis of the Products of HCI Research, Using Proforma Abstracts. In Adelson, B., Dumas, S. and Olson, J. (Eds) Proceedings of CHI’84, 278-284.
Ng, K. (2002) Toward a Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Relationship between Situated Action and Planned Action Models of Behavior in Information Retrieval Contexts: Contributions from Phenomenology, Information Processing and Management, 38: 613-626.
Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
Norman, D. (1983) Design Principles for Human-Computer Interfaces. In Smith, R., Pew, R. and Janda, A. (Eds) Proceedings of CHI 83, Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference. Boston, Massachusetts: United States ACM.
Norman, D. (1986) Cognitive Engineering. In Draper, S. and Norman, D. (Eds) User Centred System Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Norman, D. (2010) The Transmedia Design Challenge: Technology That Is Pleasurable and Satisfying. Interactions, 17, (1): 12-15.
Obrist, M., Tuch, A. and Hornbaek, K. (2014) Opportunities for Odor: Experiences with Smell and Implications for Technology. In CHI 2014 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Toronto, Canada: ACM.
Olson, J. and Olson, G. (1990) The Growth of Cognitive Modelling since GOMS. Human-Computer Interactions, 5: 221-265.
Olson, J. and Olson,G. (2000) Distance Matters, Human-Computer Interaction, 15: 139-178.
Polson, P. (1987) A Quantitative Theory of Human-Computer Interaction. In Carroll, J. (Ed), Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer interaction. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Rauterberg, M. (2006) HCI as an Engineering Discipline: To Be or Not To Be!? African Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 2 (4): 163-184.
Redmond-Pyle, D. and Moore, A. (1995) Graphical User Interface Design and Evaluation (GUIDE): A Practical Process. International: Prentice Hall.
Rogers, Y. (2012) HCI Theory – Classical, Modern, and Contemporary. UK: Morgan and Claypool.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. and Preece, J. (2011) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd. Edition. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Rozanski, E. and Haake, A. (2003) The Many Facets of HCI. In Proceeding of the 4th Conference on Information Technology Education, ACM Press, 180-185.
Salisbury, J. (2014) Videogame Engagement as a Process of Seeking Cultural Value. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Salter, I. (2010) Applying the Conception of HCI Engineering to the Design of Economic Systems. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 68-71.
Santos, P., Kiris, E. and Coyle, C. (1997) Designing as the World Turns. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems DIS 97, ACM Press, 315-321.
Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. (1996) External Cognition: How do Graphical Representations Work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45: 185–213.
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, J. (2007) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd. Edition. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Shneiderman, B. (1983) Direct Manipulation: A Step beyond Programming Languages. IEEE Computer 16(8): 57–69.
Shneiderman, B. (1998) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human- Computer Interaction, 3rd Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shneiderman, B. (2010) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human- Computer Interaction, 5th Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Stork, A. (1999) Towards Engineering Principles for Human-Computer Interaction (Domestic Energy Planning Control). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of London.
Stork, A. and Long, J. (1994) A Specific Planning and Control Design Problem in the Home: Rationale and a Case-Study. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Home-Oriented Informatics, Telematics and Automation. Denmark: Amager.
Stork, A., Middlemass, J. and Long, J. (1995) Applying a Structured Method for Usability Engineering to Domestic Energy Management User Requirements: a Successful Case-Study. In Proceedings of HCI, Huddersfield. 367-385.
Stork, A., Long, J. and Lambie, T. (1999) Is Cognitive Engineering the Way Forward for HCI? In Proc. INTERACT 99, Volume II, Brewster, S., Cawsey, A. and Cockton, G. (Eds), Edinburgh UK, p.141. Swindon, UK: British Computer Society.
Suchman, L. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sutcliffe, A. and Blandford A. (2010) Guest Editors’ Introduction. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 1-2.
Sutcliffe, A. and Minocha, S. (1998) Scenario-based Analysis of Non-Functional Requirements. In: Dubois, E., Opdahl, A. and Pohl, K. (Eds) Requirements Engineering. Foundation for Software Quality, Proceedings 4th International Workshop, REFSQ 1998, Pisa, Italy.
Teo, L. and John, B. (2008) CogTool-Explorer: Towards a Tool for Predicting User Interaction. In Proc. of CHI EA’08, ACM, 2793–2798.
Timmer P. (1999). Expression of Operator Planning Horizons: a Cognitive Approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of London.
Timmer, P. and Long, J. (2002) Expressing the Effectiveness of Planning Horizons. Le Travail Humain, 65 (2): 103-126.
Vanderheiden, G. (2008) Ubiquitous Accessibility, Common Technology Core, and Micro Assistive Technology. ACM Transactions in Accessible Computing 1 (2), 10: 1–7.
Vicente, K. and Rasmussen, J. (1990) The Ecology of Man-Machine Systems II: Mediating ‘Direct Perception’ in Complex Work Domains. Ecological Psychology, 2: 207–249.
Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watts, L. and Monk, A. (1997), Telemedical Consultation: Task Characteristics, in Proc. CHI ’97, Atlanta, Georgia. ACM Press, pp.534-535.
Watts, L. and Monk, A. (1998), Reasoning about Tasks, Activity and Technology to Support Collaboration. Ergonomics, 41 (11): 1583-1606.
Watts, L. and Monk, A. (1999). Telemedicine: What Happens in Teleconsultation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 15 (1): 220-235.
Wild, P. (2010) Longing for Service: Bringing the UCL Conception towards Services Research. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 28-42.
Winograd (1997) From Computing Machinery to Interaction Design. In Denning, P. and Metcalfe, R. (Eds) Beyond Calculation: The Next Fifty Years of Computing, 149-162. Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Woods, D. (1995) Toward a Theoretical Base for Representation Design in the Computer Medium: Ecological Perception and Aiding Cognition. In Flach, J., Hancock, P., Carid, J. and Vicente, K. (Eds) Global Perspective on the Ecology of Human-Machine Systems, 157–188.
Wright, P., Fields, R. and Harrison, M. (2000) Analysing Human-Computer Interaction as Distributed Cognition: the Resources Model. Human Computer Interaction, 51 (1): 1–41.
INTERACTIVE FORUM
This section includes: Blog; Reviews; Feedback; Right of Reply; Dialogue/Interviews; Book Editions and Section Archive. Read
BLOG 1
User Requirements and Design Problems – is there a Difference?
There is general agreement that the requirements phase is the foundation upon which the rest of the system development life-cycle is built. Requirements can be divided into different categories – functional and non-functional; also vital and desirable. More specific types of requirements may also be identified, including: organisational; system client; developer; user interaction; and interface [1]. Of concern here are User Requirements, because although part of the initial phase of the system development cycle, they do not appear to include, explicitly at least, the concept of design problem as such (although they do not exclude it explicitly either).
The omission is important because elsewhere much research claims to be addressing design problems, although it does not appear to include, explicitly at least, the concept of user requirement as such (although it does not exclude it explicitly either). For example, Hill (3) is clear, that her HCI/E models and method are intended to: ’Support diagnosis of specific design problems and reasoning about potential design solutions’. Stork and Long [6] specifically include design problem in the title of their paper – A Specific Planning and Design Problem in the Home. Likewise, Dowell [2] – Formulating the Cognitive Design Problem of Air Traffic Management. The diagnosis of design problems and the reasoning about potential design solutions are performed by HCI/E researchers, as part of their attempts to acquire and validate new design knowledge. The question then arises as to what is the relation between user requirements and design problems?
One possible relation is that user requirements and design problems are one and the same thing. That is, there is no difference between them. Although it is not totally clear, Newman [4] might be understood as taking this view: ’Recognising the need for an artifice, and thus identifying a problem in computer systems design whose solution will meet this need (the initial stage of the engineering design process)’. This view, however, is rejected here. Following the HCI/E Discipline and Design Problem conceptions, in the manner of Hill’s research, a design problem occurs, when actual performance (for example, expressed, following Hill, as Task Quality, User Costs and Computer Costs) does not equal (is usually less than) desired performance, expressed in the same way. Alternative, but equally well specified, expressions of performance, might be used here. In contrast, user requirements have no such expression or constraints, even allowing user requirements to conflict or to be obviously unrealisable.
This difference indicates that user requirements and design problems are not one and the same concept. Rather, it suggests that design problems can be expressed as (potential) user requirements, but not vice versa. Salter [5] appears to agree with this asymmetric relationship, although his terms differ. The Specific Requirements Specification (‘design problem’) is an abstraction over the Client Requirements (‘user requirements’). The Specific Artifact Specification (‘design solution’) is an abstraction over the Artifact. The Client Requirements/Artifact relationship is derived and verified empirically. The Specific Requirements Specification/Specific Artifact Specification is derived and verified formally. Salter’s conception is consistent with those proposed for the design research exemplars, which accompany each framework in the book.
Whatever the terms used, however, the general point for HCI research, whatever the approach and whatever the framework, is that differences between User Requirements and Design Problems need to be both explicit and clear.
References
1. Denley and Long (2010) Dialectic Approach to Multidisciplinary Practice in Requirements Engineering
2. Dowell (1998) Formulating the Cognitive Design Problem of Air Traffic Management
3. Hill (2010) Diagnosing Co-ordination problems in the Emergency Management Response to Disasters
4. Newman (1994) A Preliminary Analysis of the Products of HCI Research, Using Proforma Abstarcts
5. Salter (2010) Applying the Conception of HCI Engineering to the Design of Economic Systems
6. Stork and Long (1994) A Specific Planning and Design Problem in the Home: Rationale and a Case-study
Links
The links are to associated published research. Read
Archive
The archive contains earlier versions of the book introduction. Read
About this Book
The title of the book ‘Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research’ makes clear its scope and content. The latter concerns both what it is and what it is not. It is about human-computer interaction (HCI) research, not just about HCI in general. However, both subjects are addressed. This distinguishes it from other attempts to address the two subjects, either as separate or as undifferentiated topics. Here, approaches are distinguished from frameworks. However, both are specified explicitly, including the relations between them.
The book presents an ‘approach-and-framework’ response to the HCI research challenge of addressing the increased growth and diversification of HCI. The response supports researchers building on and validating each other’s work. The aim is to decrease theory fragmentation and so to increase HCI discipline progress. The contrast is with HCI community progress, which continues apace.
It is a book for researchers, especially young researchers, and so might properly be described as a research textbook. In this respect, it is unique and different from other textbooks, aimed primarily at supporting the HCI teaching of undergraduate and masters students. This difference is reflected in its ‘how to do research’ aspects, exemplified by the research practice assignments. In particular, the research design scenarios, presented at the end of chapters. For this reason, the text is organised and written to support application of the approaches and frameworks proposed. Encouraging researchers to internalise the latter is part of that support. This is in addition to supporting researchers in their ability to understand and to reason about the approaches and frameworks. Clarificatory notes are presented at the end of each chapter.
Although intended primarily for researchers, starting their careers in academia or industry, the textbook is also suitable for graduate and post-graduate students being introduced to the world of research. It also aims to support the supervisors teaching them about HCI research and its relation to HCI more generally. In particular, the textbook supports students learning how approaches and frameworks contribute to the planning and conduct of research in practice.
It is a good time to publish such a research textbook. It offers a clear alternative to the current ‘design-an-application-for-a-good-user-experience’ line of design practice research. The latter, whatever its strengths, notably fails to address the HCI research challenge identified earlier, concerning poor discipline progress. It might even be said to contribute to that challenge by the very number of frameworks and theories, which it has helped to engender. Indeed, it is hard, on occasion, to distinguish such design practice research from HCI design practice itself. The textbook’s strength lies in its recognition of the current differences between the many types of HCI approach to research, appearing in the literature. Its strength also lies in the need for frameworks to apply to such approaches and so to support researchers building on and validating each other’s work.
About the Author
The author feels able to write such a research textbook. The conception, underlying the proposed relationship between approaches and frameworks for HCI research, was developed by colleagues, PhD students and himself during their time at University College London. The conception has been used, then and since, for MSc and PhD student teaching, also for both academic and commercial research. The latter provides an extensive source of illustrations for the book together with the HCI research literature more generally.
About the Readership
As indicated, the textbook is primarily for young HCI researchers and their supervisors from both engineering and science academics to research and development innovators. The book is also for researchers in related disciplines seeking ways to contribute to HCI research. Such disciplines include information science, applied psychology, computer science, informatics, software engineering and social science. Researchers are expected to use the textbook for detailed and ongoing reference in support of their work.
Acknowledgements
The book is offered as an affectionate, if somewhat belated, festschrift for colleagues and PhD students at the EU/UCL Unit, whose research contributions have made it possible.