John

(F2 ) Criteria, here, may include: time; errors; completeness etc.

Citations

Long and Dowell (1989)

(C1) ‘It (the Conception) dichotomises ‘interactive worksystems’ which perform work, and ‘domains of application’ in which work originates, is performed, and has its consequences’. (Page 24, Lines 39 and 40)

(C2) ‘The discipline of engineering includes the engineering practice addressing the general (engineering) problem of design.’  (Page 12, Lines 3-5)

(C3) ‘The discipline of engineering may characteristically solve its general problem (of design) by the specification of designs before their implementation.’ (Page 24, Lines 11-12).

 (F1) ‘As wanted’, here, may refer to individuals or groups, or indeed both, as in: users; clients etc.

(F2) ‘Implement and test’ design practices include, more generally, ‘trial and error’; ‘prototype and iterate (and test)’ practices etc.

(F3) ‘Effort’ is intended in no way to be restrictive. Different approaches have different concepts for what is required, for example, engagement; fun; experience, motivation etc.

(F4) See F3 above). (F5) Performance is not intended here to be restrictive. Different approaches to HCI have many different concepts, for example, efficiency; effectiveness; engagement; fun; experience etc.

Citations

 Dowell and Long (1989)

(C1) ‘…….. a conception of the general design problem …….. is expressed informally as: ‘to design human interactions with computers for effective working’.’  (Page 1513, Lines 12-13)

(C2) ‘A conception is a unitary (and consensus) view of a general design problem; its power lies in the coherence and completeness of its definition of the concepts which can express that problem. Engineering principles are articulated in terms of those concepts. Hence, the requirement for a conception for the HF discipline is concluded (Section 1.5.).’ (Page 1514, Lines 19-22)

(C3) ‘Most definitions of disciplines assume three primary characteristics: a general problem; practices, providing solutions to that problem; and knowledge, supporting those practices.’ (Page 1514, Lines 39-41)

(C4) ‘…….. one class of general problem is that of the general design problem and includes the design of artefacts (of bridges, for example) and the design of ‘states of the world’ (of public administration, for example).’ (Page 1524, Lines 43-45)

(C5)’…….. any general problem has the necessary property of a scope, delimiting the province of concern of the associated discipline.’ (Page 1514, Lines 47 and 48)

(C6) The scope of the HCI general design problem includes: humans, both as individuals, as groups, and as social organisations; computers, both as programmable machines, stand-alone and networked, and as functionally embedded devices within machines; and work, both with regard to individuals and the organisations in which it occurs. (Page 1515, Lines 11-14)

(C7) ‘A discipline’s practices construct solutions to its general design problem……..  disciplines appear to differ in the completeness with which they specify solutions to their respective general design problems before implementation occurs. ……..’ (Page 1517, Line 46; Page 1518, Lines 2 and 3).

(C8) ‘The interactive worksystem can be distinguished as two separate, but interacting sub-systems, that is, a system of human behaviours interacting with a system of computer behaviours.’ (Page 1523, Lines 1-3)

(C9) ‘The general design problem of HF then, is one of producing implementable specifications of human behaviours {U} which , interacting with computer behaviours {C}, are constituted within a worksystem {S} whose performance conforms with a desired performance (Pd).’ (Page 1523, Lines 11-14)

(C10) ‘The conception for HF identifies a world in which work originates, is performed and has its consequences. This section presents the concepts by which work and its relations with the user are expressed.’ (Page 1523, Lines 19 and 20)

(C11) ‘Organisations are conceptualised as having domains as their operational province ……..  It is a requirement satisfied through work.’ (Page 1524, Lines 36-38)

(C12) ‘The conception for HF identifies interactive worksystems consisting of human and computer behaviours together performing work.’ (Page 1526, Lines 2 and 3)

(C13) ‘Humans are able to conceptualise goals and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intentional (or purposeful). Computers, and machines more generally, are designed to achieve goals, and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intended (or purposive1). An interactive worksystem   (‘worksystem’) is a behavioural system distinguished by a boundary enclosing all human and computer behaviours whose purpose is to achieve and satisfy a common goal.’ (Page 1526, Lines 5-11)

(C14) ‘The behaviours of the human and computer are conceptualised as behavioural sub-systems of the worksystem – sub-systems which interact.’ (Page 1526, Lines 24 and 25)

(C15) ‘The behaviours constituting a worksystem are both physical as well as abstract.’ (Page 1526, Lines 39 and 40)

(C16) ‘Although the human and computer behaviours may be treated as separable sub-systems of the worksystem, those sub-systems extend a “mutual influence”, or interaction whose configuration principally determines the worksystem (Ashby, 1956).’ (Page 1527, Lines 24-27)

(C17) ‘The user may include both on-line and off-line human behaviours………’ (Page 1528, Lines 8 and 9) .

(C18) ‘A desired performance of an interactive worksystem may be conceptualised. Such a desired performance might either be absolute, or relative as in a comparative performance to be matched or improved upon.’ (Pages 1531. Lines 8-10)

(C19)……..’ Instances of the general design problem may include the development of a worksystem, or the utilisation of a worksystem within an organisation. Developing worksystems which are effective, and maintaining the effectiveness of worksystems within a changing organisational environment, are both expressed within the problem.’(Page 1532, Lines 16-20)

(F1) Engineering here is contrasted, for example, with Science.

(F2) Engineering approaches may themselves vary, for example, depending on the type of knowledge they acquire and apply. However, the present conception is intended to be general to all engineering approaches.

(F3) The use of ‘task’ here is in no way restrictive. Tasks may be more-or-less well specified, according to the engineering approach in question.

(F4) ‘Resources’ may be variously conceptualized, for example, as: effort; affect; knowledge etc.

(F5) There are many different expressions of performance, for example: effectiveness; efficiency; time and errors; safety; expedition etc.

(F6) See F4 above.

Citations

 Dowell and Long (1989)

(C1) ‘…….. a conception of the general design problem …….. is expressed informally as: ‘to design human interactions with computers for effective working’.’  (Page 1513, Lines 12-13)

(C2) ‘A conception is a unitary (and consensus) view of a general design problem; its power lies in the coherence and completeness of its definition of the concepts which can express that problem. Engineering principles are articulated in terms of those concepts. Hence, the requirement for a conception for the HF discipline is concluded (Section 1.5.).’ (Page 1514, Lines 19-22)

(C3) ‘Most definitions of disciplines assume three primary characteristics: a general problem; practices, providing solutions to that problem; and knowledge, supporting those practices.’ (Page 1514, Lines 39-41)

(C4) ‘…….. one class of general problem is that of the general design problem and includes the design of artefacts (of bridges, for example) and the design of ‘states of the world’ (of public administration, for example).’ (Page 1524, Lines 43-45)

(C5)’…….. any general problem has the necessary property of a scope, delimiting the province of concern of the associated discipline.’ (Page 1514, Lines 47 and 48)

(C6) The scope of the HCI general design problem includes: humans, both as individuals, as groups, and as social organisations; computers, both as programmable machines, stand-alone and networked, and as functionally embedded devices within machines; and work, both with regard to individuals and the organisations in which it occurs. (Page 1515, Lines 11-14)

(C7) ‘…….. The ‘design’ disciplines are ranged according to the ‘hardness’ or ‘softness’ of their respective general design problems. …….. However, here hard and soft problems will be generally distinguished by their determinism for the purpose, that is, by the need for design solutions to be determinate.’ (Page 1517, Lines 31 and 32 and 38-40).

(C8) ‘A discipline’s practices construct solutions to its general design problem……..  disciplines appear to differ in the completeness with which they specify solutions to their respective general design problems before implementation occurs. ……..’ (Page 1517, Line 46; Page 1518, Lines 2 and 3).

(C9) ‘Taken together, the dimension of problem hardness, characterising general design problems, and the dimension of specification completeness, characterising discipline practices, constitute a classification space for design disciplines……..’ (Page 1518, Lines 20-22)

(C10) ‘First, a general relation may be apparent between the hardness of a general design problem and the realiseable completeness with which its solutions might be specified. (Page 1518, Lines 20-22)

(C11) ‘Whilst the realiseable completeness with which a discipline may specify design solutions is governed by the hardness of the general design problem, the actual completeness with which it does so is governed by the formality of the knowledge it possesses.’ (Page 1519, Lines 15-18)

(C12)’…….. there exists no pre-ordained relationship between the formality of a discipline’s knowledge and the hardness of its general design problem.’ (Page 1519, Lines 31-33)

(C13) ‘The conception for the (super-ordinate) engineering discipline of HCI asserts a fundamental distinction between behavioural systems which perform work, and a world in which work originates, is performed and has its consequences.’ (Page 1522, Lines 2-4)

(C14) ‘Effectiveness derives from the relationship of an interactive worksystem with its domain of application. ‘(Page 1522, Lines 9 and 10)

(C15) ‘The concern of an engineering HCI discipline would be the design of interactive worksystems for performance.’ (Page 1522, Lines 13 and 14)

(C16) ‘The interactive worksystem can be distinguished as two separate, but interacting sub-systems, that is, a system of human behaviours interacting with a system of computer behaviours.’ (Page 1523, Lines 1-3)

(C17) ‘The general design problem of HF then, is one of producing implementable specifications of human behaviours {U} which, interacting with computer behaviours {C}, are constituted within a worksystem {S} whose performance conforms with a desired performance (Pd).’ (Page 1523, Lines 11-14)

(C18) ‘The conception for HF identifies a world in which work originates, is performed and has its consequences. This section presents the concepts by which work and its relations with the user are expressed.’ (Page 1523, Lines 19 and 20)

(C19) ‘Organisations are conceptualised as having domains as their operational province ……..  It is a requirement satisfied through work.’ (Page 1524, Lines 36-38)

(C20) ‘The conception for HF identifies interactive worksystems consisting of human and computer behaviours together performing work.’ (Page 1526, Lines 2 and 3)

(C21) ‘Humans are able to conceptualise goals and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intentional (or purposeful). Computers, and machines more generally, are designed to achieve goals, and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intended (or purposive1). An interactive worksystem   (‘worksystem’) is a behavioural system distinguished by a boundary enclosing all human and computer behaviours whose purpose is to achieve and satisfy a common goal.’ (Page 1526, Lines 5-11)

(C22) ‘The behaviours of the human and computer are conceptualised as behavioural sub-systems of the worksystem – sub-systems which interact.’ (Page 1526, Lines 24 and 25)

(C23) ‘The behaviours constituting a worksystem are both physical as well as abstract.’ (Page 1526, Lines 39 and 40)

(C24) ‘Although the human and computer behaviours may be treated as separable sub-systems of the worksystem, those sub-systems extend a “mutual influence”, or interaction whose configuration principally determines the worksystem (Ashby, 1956).’ (Page 1527, Lines 24-27)

(C25) ‘The user may include both on-line and off-line human behaviours: on-line behaviours are associated with the computer’s representation of the domain; offline behaviours are associated with non-computer representations of the domain, or the domain itself.’ (Page 1528, Lines 8-11)

(C26) ‘Physical human structure is neural, bio-mechanical and physiological. Mental structure consists of representational schemes and processes.’ (Page 1528, Lines 40 and 41)

(C27) ‘A desired performance of an interactive worksystem may be conceptualised. Such a desired performance might either be absolute, or relative as in a comparative performance to be matched or improved upon.’ (Pages 1531. Lines 8-10)

(C28)……..’ Instances of the general design problem may include the development of a worksystem, or the utilisation of a worksystem within an organisation. Developing worksystems which are effective, and maintaining the effectiveness of worksystems within a changing organisational environment, are both expressed within the problem.’(Page 1532, Lines 16-20)

 (F1) Other types of design knowledge may also be expressed, using the concepts of the design problem expression, for example, models and methods.

(F2) Implement and test practices also include: trial-and error; prototype and iterate; etc.

Citations

 Dowell and Long (1989)

(C1) ‘…….. a conception of the general design problem …….. is expressed informally as: ‘to design human interactions with computers for effective working’.’  (Page 1513, Lines 12-13)

(C2) ‘A conception is a unitary (and consensus) view of a general design problem; its power lies in the coherence and completeness of its definition of the concepts which can express that problem. Engineering principles are articulated in terms of those concepts. Hence, the requirement for a conception for the HF discipline is concluded (Section 1.5.).’ (Page 1514, Lines 19-22)

(C3) ‘Most definitions of disciplines assume three primary characteristics: a general problem; practices, providing solutions to that problem; and knowledge, supporting those practices.’ (Page 1514, Lines 39-41)

(C4) ‘…….. one class of general problem is that of the general design problem and includes the design of artefacts (of bridges, for example) and the design of ‘states of the world’ (of public administration, for example).’ (Page 1524, Lines 43-45)

(C5)’…….. any general problem has the necessary property of a scope, delimiting the province of concern of the associated discipline.’ (Page 1514, Lines 47 and 48)

(C6) The scope of the HCI general design problem includes: humans, both as individuals, as groups, and as social organisations; computers, both as programmable machines, stand-alone and networked, and as functionally embedded devices within machines; and work, both with regard to individuals and the organisations in which it occurs. (Page 1515, Lines 11-14)

(C7) ‘…….. The ‘design’ disciplines are ranged according to the ‘hardness’ or ‘softness’ of their respective general design problems. …….. However, here hard and soft problems will be generally distinguished by their determinism for the purpose, that is, by the need for design solutions to be determinate.’ (Page 1517, Lines 31 and 32; and 38-40).

(C8) ‘A discipline’s practices construct solutions to its general design problem……..  disciplines appear to differ in the completeness with which they specify solutions to their respective general design problems before implementation occurs. ……..’ (Page 1517, Line 46; Page 1518, Lines 2 and 3).

(C9) ‘Taken together, the dimension of problem hardness, characterising general design problems, and the dimension of specification completeness, characterising discipline practices, constitute a classification space for design disciplines……..’ (Page 1518, Lines 20-22)

(C10) ‘First, a general relation may be apparent between the hardness of a general design problem and the realiseable completeness with which its solutions might be specified. (Page 1518, Lines 20-22)

(C11) ‘Whilst the realiseable completeness with which a discipline may specify design solutions is governed by the hardness of the general design problem, the actual completeness with which it does so is governed by the formality of the knowledge it possesses.’ (Page 1519, Lines 15-18)

(C12)’…….. there exists no pre-ordained relationship between the formality of a discipline’s knowledge and the hardness of its general design problem.’ (Page 1519, Lines 31-33)

(C13) ‘The conception for the (super-ordinate) engineering discipline of HCI asserts a fundamental distinction between behavioural systems which perform work, and a world in which work originates, is performed and has its consequences.’ (Page 1522, Lines 2-4)

(C14) ‘Effectiveness derives from the relationship of an interactive worksystem with its domain of application – it assimilates both the quality of the work performed by the worksystem, and the costs it incurs. ‘(Page 1522, Lines 9-11)

(C15) ‘The concern of an engineering HCI discipline would be the design of interactive worksystems for performance.’ (Page 1522, Lines 13 and 14)

(C16) ‘The interactive worksystem can be distinguished as two separate, but interacting sub-systems, that is, a system of human behaviours interacting with a system of computer behaviours.’ (Page 1523, Lines 1-3)

(C17) ‘The general design problem of HF then, is one of producing implementable specifications of human behaviours {U} which, interacting with computer behaviours {C}, are constituted within a worksystem {S} whose performance conforms with a desired performance (Pd).’ (Page 1523, Lines 11-14)

(C18) ‘The conception for HF identifies a world in which work originates, is performed and has its consequences. This section presents the concepts by which work and its relations with the user are expressed.’ (Page 1523, Lines 19 and 20) (C19) ‘Work occurs in a world consisting of objects and arises in the intersection of organisations and (computer) technology. Objects may be both abstract as well as physical, and are characterised by their attributes.’ (Page 1523, Lines 22-24)

(C20) ‘The different attributes of an object may emerge at different levels within a hierarchy of levels of complexity (see Checkland, 1981).’ (Page 1523, Lines 30 and 31)  

(C21) ‘Attributes of objects are related, and in two ways. First, attributes at different levels of complexity are related. ……..’ (Page 1523, Lines 42 and 43) Second, attributes of objects are related within levels of complexity. …….. (Page 1524, Line 11) (C22) ‘At any point or event in the history of an object, each of its attributes is conceptualised as having a state. Further, those states may change. …….. Objects exhibit an affordance for transformation, engendered by their attributes’ potential for state change (see Gibson, 1977).’ (Page 1524, Lines 15-17 and 19-20)

(C23) ‘A domain of application may be conceptualised as: ‘a class of affordance of a class of objects’.’ (Page 1524, Lines 30 and 31)

(C24) ‘Organisations are conceptualised as having domains as their operational province and of requiring the realisation of the affordance of objects. It is a requirement satisfied through work.’ (Page 1524, Lines 36-38)

(C25) ‘Organisations express their requirement for the transformation of objects through specifying goals. A product goal specifies a required transform – a required realisation of the affordance of an object.’ (Page 1524, Lines 45 and 46; Page 1525, Line 1)

(C26) ‘The transformation of an object demanded by a product goal will generally be of a multiplicity of attribute state changes – both within and across levels of complexity. ……… The concept of quality (Q) describes the variance of an actual transform with that specified by a product goal. It enables all possible outcomes of work to be equated and evaluated.’ (Page 1525, Lines 23-25 and 29-31)

(C27) ‘Conception of the domain then, is of objects, characterised by their attributes, and exhibiting an affordance arising from the potential changes of state of those attributes.’ (Page 1525, Lines 32-34)

(C28) ‘The conception for HF identifies interactive worksystems consisting of human and computer behaviours together performing work.’ (Page 1526, Lines 2 and 3)

(C29) ‘Humans are able to conceptualise goals and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intentional (or purposeful). Computers, and machines more generally, are designed to achieve goals, and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intended (or purposive1). An interactive worksystem   (‘worksystem’) is a behavioural system distinguished by a boundary enclosing all human and computer behaviours whose purpose is to achieve and satisfy a common goal.’ (Page 1526, Lines 5-11)

(C30) ‘Worksystems transform objects by producing state changes in the abstract and physical attributes of those objects (see Section 2.2).’ (Page 1526, Lines 17 and 18)

(C31) ‘The behaviours of the human and computer are conceptualised as behavioural sub-systems of the worksystem – sub-systems which interact.’ (Page 1526, Lines 24 and 25)

(C32) ‘Although possible at many levels, the user must at least be expressed at a level commensurate with the level of description of the transformation of objects in the domain.’ (Page 1526, Lines 33-35)

(C33) ‘The behaviours constituting a worksystem are both physical as well as abstract.’ (Page 1526, Lines 39 and 40)

(C34) ‘The user is conceptualised as having cognitive, conative and affective aspects.’ (Page 1527, Line 19)

(C35) ‘Although the human and computer behaviours may be treated as separable sub-systems of the worksystem, those sub-systems extend a “mutual influence”, or interaction whose configuration principally determines the worksystem (Ashby, 1956).’ (Page 1527, Lines 24-27)

(C36) ‘The user may include both on-line and off-line human behaviours: on-line behaviours are associated with the computer’s representation of the domain; offline behaviours are associated with non-computer representations of the domain, or the domain itself.’ (Page 1528, Lines 8-11)

(C37) ‘Conceptualisation of the user as a system of human behaviours needs to be extended to the structures supporting behaviors.’ (Page 1528, Lines 26 and 27)

(C38) ‘Physical human structure is neural, biomechanical and physiological. Mental structure consists of representational schemes and processes.’ (Page 1528, Lines 40 and 41)

(C39) ‘Work performed by interactive worksystems always incurs resource costs.’ (Page 1529, Lines 37 and 38)

(C40) ‘Structural human costs are the costs of the human structures co-extensive with the user.’ (Page 1529, Lines 41 and 42)

(C41) ‘Behavioral human costs are the resource costs incurred by the user (i.e. by human behaviours) in recruiting human structures to perform work. They are both physical and mental resource costs.’ (Page 1530, Lines 12-14)

(C42) ‘The costs of work are conceptualised as the resource costs incurred by the worksystem, and are separately attributed to the human and computer.’ (Page 1531, Lines 1 and 2)

(C43) ‘A desired performance of an interactive worksystem may be conceptualised. Such a desired performance might either be absolute, or relative as in a comparative performance to be matched or improved upon.’ (Page 1531, Lines 8-10)

(C44)…….. the conception of performance is able to distinguish the quality of the transform from the effectiveness of the worksystems which produce them.’ (Page 1531, Lines 17 and 18)

(C45)…….. given the concordance of behaviour with performance, optimal human (and equally, computer) behaviours may be conceived as those which incur a minimum of resource costs in producing a given transform.’ (Page 1531, Lines 22-24)

(C46)……..’the common measures of human ‘performance’ – errors and time, are related in this conceptualisation of performance.’ (Page 1531, Lines 34 and 35)

(C47) …….. ‘structural and behavioural human costs may be traded-off in performance.’ (Page 1531, Line 39)

(C48)……..’resource costs incurred by the human and the computer may be traded-off in performance.’ (Page 1531, Lines 43 and 44)

(C49)……..’ Instances of the general design problem may include the development of a worksystem, or the utilisation of a worksystem within an organisation. Developing worksystems which are effective, and maintaining the effectiveness of worksystems within a changing organisational environment, are both expressed within the problem.’(Page 1532, Lines 16-20)

 (F1) ‘Desired’ or ‘acceptable’ would be equally good here.

(F2) State-of-affairs, here, includes people, artefacts and the world more generally.

(F3) Problems are not natural phenomena and need to be identified or (better) diagnosed.

(F4) If a problem does not require a solution, then it is not really a problem.

(F5) Hence the concept of the ‘unsolved problem’.

(F6) Even the ‘solution in search of a problem’ is not really a solution till it identifies its problem.

(F7) And equally good solutions at that.

(F8) Also, classes of solution may resolve classes of problem.

(F9) Hence, design knowledge seeks design solutions to design problems.

 Dowell and Long (1989)

(C1) ‘Any general problem has the necessary property of scope.’ (Page 1514, Lines 47 and 48)

(C2) ‘A discipline’s practices construct solutions to it general design problem.’ (Page 1517, Line 46)

C3) ‘Disciplines appear to differ in the completeness with which they specify solutions to their respective design problems.’ (Page 1518, Lines 3 and 4)

(C4) ‘The features and properties of artefacts or systems that will constitute an optimal solution to a general design problem.’ (Page, 1520, Lines 14 and 15)

(F1) In fact, their contrast is an essential feature of both their meanings.

(F2) However, design and implementation also exist independently of each other (see also (6)).

(F3) The representation may take many forms: sketch; text; drawing; diagram; model; instructions etc.

(F4) ‘Realises’ here could as well be replaced by: ‘constructs’; ‘makes’; ‘renders’ etc.

(F5) Design can also be used of people, as in education or training.

(F6) An unimplemented design remains a design. An undesigned implementation is not, however, strictly speaking an implementation; but simply an object or artefact.

Citations

 Dowell and Long (1989)

(C1) ‘… one class of general problem is that of the general design problem and includes the design of artefact (of bridges, for example) and the design of ‘states of the world’ (public administration, for example).’ (Page 1514, Lines 43-45)

(C2) ‘Thus, HCI is a discipline addressing a general design problem expressed informally as: ‘to design human-computer interactions for effective working.’ (Page 1515, Lines 9 and 10)

(C3) ‘The design disciplines are ranged according to the ‘hardness’ or ‘softness’ of their respective general design problem.’ (Page 1517, Lines 31 and 32)

(C4) ‘… disciplines appear to differ in the completeness with which they specify solutions to their respective general design problems before implementation occurs.’ (Page 1518, Lines 1 and 2)

(C5) ‘Taken together, the dimension of problem hardness, characterising general design problems and the dimension of specification completeness,  characterising discipline practices, constitute a classification space for design disciplines.’ (Page 1518, Lines 15-17)

(C6) ‘the concern of an Engineering HCI discipline would be the design of interactive worksystems for performance.’ (Page 1522, Lines 13 and 14)

(C7) ‘Instances of the general design problem may include the development of a worksystem, or the utilisation of a worksystem within an organisation.’ (Page 1532, Lines 16-18)

 (F1) Design problems, then, are a subset of problems. Problems designs, in contrast, are a subset of designs.

(F2) Design state-of-affairs concern objects; artefacts; people; and the world, more generally.

(F3) More specifically, the people, objects, or states-of-affairs expressed by the design problem, are not as wanted.

(F4) The concepts of design problem and design solution are, thus, closely linked.

(F5) If no design problem is implied, then the so-called design solution is only a design and not a solution.

(F6) Such knowledge constitutes design knowledge.

Citations

 Dowell and Long (1989)

(C1) ‘…….. a conception of the general design problem …….. is expressed informally as: ‘to design human interactions with computers for effective working’.’  (Page 1513, Lines 12-13)

(C2) ‘A conception is a unitary (and consensus) view of a general design problem.’ (Page 1514, Lines 19)

(C3) ‘Most definitions of disciplines assume three primary characteristics: a general problem; practices, providing solutions to that problem; and knowledge, supporting those practices.’ (Page 1514, Lines 39-41)

(C4) ‘…….. one class of general problem is that of the general design problem and includes the design of artefacts (of bridges, for example) and the design of ‘states of the world’ (of public administration, for example).’ (Page 1524, Lines 43-45)

(C5) The scope of the HCI general design problem includes: humans, both as individuals, as groups, and as social organisations; computers, both as programmable machines, stand-alone and networked, and as functionally embedded devices within machines; and work, both with regard to individuals and the organisations in which it occurs. (Page 1515, Lines 11-14)

(C6) ‘…….. The ‘design’ disciplines are ranged according to the ‘hardness’ or ‘softness’ of their respective general design problems. …….. (Page 1517, Lines 31 and 32)

(C7) ‘A discipline’s practices construct solutions to its general design problem……..  disciplines appear to differ in the completeness with which they specify solutions to their respective general design problems before implementation occurs. ……..’ (Page 1517, Line 46; Page 1518, Lines 2 and 3).

(C8) ‘Taken together, the dimension of problem hardness, characterising general design problems, and the dimension of specification completeness, characterising discipline practices, constitute a classification space for design disciplines……..’ (Page 1518, Lines 20-22)

(C9) ‘The general design problem of HF then, is one of producing implementable specifications of human behaviours {U} which, interacting with computer behaviours {C}, are constituted within a worksystem {S} whose performance conforms with a desired performance (Pd).’ (Page 1523, Lines 11-14)

 (F1) In fact, their contrast is an essential feature of both their meanings.

(F2) However, design and implementation also exist independently of each other (see also (6)).

(F3) The representation may take many forms: sketch; text; drawing; diagram; model; instructions etc.

(F4) ‘Realises’ here could as well be replaced by: ‘constructs’; ‘makes’; ‘renders’ etc.

(F5) Design can also be used of people, as in education or training.

(F6) An unimplemented design remains a design. An undesigned implementation is not, however, strictly speaking an implementation; but simply an object or artefact.

Citations

 (F1) Following Popper, even scientific theories are only ‘supported’ or not disproved’ rather than ‘true’. The assurance, however, may be high, rather than low.

(F2) See 1.

(F3) These contrasts can be usefully related to the two modes of knowledge expression.

Citations

 Long and Dowell (1989)

(C1) ‘The framework expresses the essential characteristics of the HCI discipline, and can be summarised as: ‘the use of HCI knowledge to support practices seeking solutions to the general problem of HCI’. (Page 9, Lines 16-19)

(C2) ‘All definitions of disciplines make reference to discipline knowledge as the product of research or more generally of a field of study. Knowledge can be public (ultimately formal) or private (ultimately experiential). It may assume a number of forms; for example, it may be tacit, formal, experiential, codified – as in theories, laws and principles etc. It may also be maintained in a number of ways; for example, it may be expressed in journals, or learning systems, or it may only be embodied in procedures and tools. All disciplines would appear to have knowledge as a component (for example, scientific discipline knowledge, engineering discipline knowledge, medical discipline knowledge, etc). Knowledge, therefore, is a necessary characteristic of a discipline.’ (Page 11, Lines 30-38)

(C3) ‘First, HCI engineering principles would be a generaliseable knowledge. …….. Second, engineering HCI principles would be operational, and so their application would be specifiable…….. Because they would be operational, they would be testable and their reliability and generality could be specified.’ (Page 27, Lines 20-22 and 36-28)