MeSch Annotated Bibliography
Brandt, S., Binder, T., Sanders, E. B.-N. (2013) ‘Tools and Techniques: ways to engage telling, making and enacting’, in Simonsen, J. and Robertson, T., eds., Routledge International Handbook on Participatory Design, London: Routledge, 145 – 179.
The authors discuss the various techniques that can be used to gather information through participatory design, emphasising the number of techniques are limitless. Choosing a technique depends on what the researcher is aiming to achieve. Techniques for demonstrating designs include participatory prototyping and enacting scenarios; techniques for gathering information on experiences include cultural probes and techniques for allowing participants express their ideas include the use of generative tools such as collages and diaries. It is important to note also that the environment can also influence the value of a design output, especially if the final design is to be fitted in a specific environment. For meSch, it is important to think clearly about the objectives we have for each co-design workshop. The tools and techniques we use should satisfy our goals. However, it is important to keep the form of output open enough so the participants in the workshop can choose an appropriate technique to express their ideas.
Dindler, C., Siejerlverson, O., Smith, R., and Veerasawmy, R. (2010) ‘Participatory Design at the Museum: Inquiring into Children’s Everyday Engagement in Cultural Heritage’, in Bereton, M., Viller, S., and Kraal, B., chairs, Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Human Computer Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia, Brisbane, Australia, 22 – 26 Nov, NY: ACM, 72 – 79.
This research explores methods for engaging children in cultural heritage exhibitions through games and participatory design. Children aged 14/15 were invited to partake in a workshop that explored the children’s interest in online games/communities and examined how these concepts could be applied for a physical museum exhibit. For meSch, our focus is on the curator/cultural heritage professionals rather than the visitors; however, it would be important to know what engages cultural heritage professionals in their work and how to best design a system that enhances rather than hinders their current work practices.
Ehn, P. (2008) ‘Participation in Design Things’, in Hakken, D., chair, Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, Bloomington, Indiana, 30 Sept. – 04 Oct., NY: ACM, 92 – 101.
Ehn speaks about participatory design in the context of designing “things”. Participatory design is a methodology for gathering design ideas from stakeholders before use. However, it is not always foreseeable what the artefact may be used for. In contrast, meta-design explores design ideas from stakeholders after use. In meSch, design ideas should be collected through both stages: before design (participatory design) and after design (meta-design), to inform our design choices.
Carroll, J. M. (2000) ‘Five Reasons for Scenario Based Design’, Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 43 – 60.
Carroll describes the benefits of scenario-based design in this paper. Scenarios are stories, describing key workflows the end user performs when completing tasks. Scenarios are beneficial as they consider embodied interaction for performance; they encourage communication amongst stakeholders; they encourage reflection of work tasks, space and place of design; scenarios have room for change because many are initially basic; and scenarios can be used to analyse many design problems at once. For meSch, it’s important to consider the place of design, and have a good communication level with the end users. For these reasons, scenario-based design may be a good approach.
Sejer Iversen, O., Halskov, K., Leong, T. (2010) 'Rekindling Values in Participatory Design', PDC '10 Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, Sydney, Australia, November 29-December 03, 2010, NY: ACM, 91-100.
This paper demonstrates the process of working with values in PD through the recursive phases of emergence, development, grounding and realization. With the aid of 3 case studies, it shows the explicit and tacit means of achieving value-led PD. For meSch, it illustrates the concrete methods used, for example, emergence -dialogue and workshops, grounding - inspiration card workshops and fictional inquiry and grounding - future scenarios, sketches and demonstrative workshops. It also outlines a set of tactics for helping to develop values in 2 scenarios - 1) for groups in agreement of values and 2) for groups with conflicting values.
Sejer Iversen, O., Leong, T. (2012) 'Values-led Participatory Design - Mediating the Emergence of Values', Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design, NordiCHI'12. Copenhagen, 14-17 October 2012., NY: ACM, 468 – 477. Available from:http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2399087 [Accessed 25 June 2013]
This paper argues for the engagement of human values as the engine to drive the design of technology and recommends that we only view methods and participation as means to achieving what should be the ultimate ends of PD: a core engagement with values. It illustrates that working with values is a recursive 3-phase process that supports the emergence, development and grounding of values. This paper focuses solely upon this emergence phase, illustrating how we can support the emergence of values during the initial phase of a values-led inquiry. With the aid of a case study, it describes how the authors establish, negotiate and the debrief values during the initial 'emergence' phase of a values-led inquiry. As an alternative to focusing on a particular co-design methodology for meSch, value-led co-design offers an alternative. This paper illustrate the ways, the processes, the methods, the tools, that were used to help cultivate the emergence of values during the design process.
Vines, J., Clarke, R., Wright, P., McCarthy, J., and Olivier, P. (2013) 'Configuring Participation: On How We Involve People In Design' Co-Design with Users Session CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France
This paper questions the unintentional filters applied by researchers onto the seemingly democratic and open practice of participatory design. It acknowledges the recent diversification of traditional pd to include processes such as crowdsourcing and participatory art and highlights 3 main goals of pd - to empower users, to learn from users(sharing expertise via boundary objects) and to induce individual, organizational and technological change. Considering the new wider definition of pd, it examines 'how we involve people in design' so as to to raise questions about the original integrity of these goals. In the process of designing and documenting the various roles and degrees of experience of heritage professionals, the paper offer pragmatic advice. Consider the multiple levels of engagement, from passive spectator to active designer, to support people to offer as much or as little as they wish. Consider being open and reflexive in setting the boundaries for participants, in order to allow voices of those less likely to be involved be heard. And consider allowing users to be given a greater share in defining the design process.
Hermans, G. Identifying User-as-Designer Behaviors When Designing By Using Toolkits. 10th European Academy of Design Conference Crafting the Future, (2013).
Muller, M. J., (2002) ‘Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI’, in Jacko, J and Seers, A., eds., The Human Computer Interaction Handbook, NJ: L Erlbaum Associates, 1051 – 1068.
This paper describes several methods for Participatory Design research: including workshops, dramas, and low-tech prototypes. Through low-tech prototyping, potential users construct designs using low-tech materials as an aid to solve design problems. Low-tech prototypes have proved to generate good ideas, and a stronger communication standpoint between the designer and the end user. A workshop for cultural heritage professionals to design low-tech prototypes would be an interesting approach; furthermore, testing this method at a workshop would be highly beneficial.
Kanstrup, A. (2012) ‘A small matter of design: an analysis of end users as designers’, in Halskov, K., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Lee, Y., Roskilde, J. S., Bødker Roskilde, K., eds., Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers (PDC), Roskilde, Denmark, 12 - 16 Aug., NY: ACM, 109 - 118.
Kanstrup speaks of the continued importance of giving participants a “voice” in participatory design. There are several different ways for users to participate in design: such methods include through design exercises, using adaptable toolkits for meta-design, and end user programming/development. However, participants have an important role in the design process; they often unconsciously communicate tehir expressions in the design: these include identity and values. Kanstrup argues that we should acknowledge this form of communication in design.
Rodil, K., Winschers-Theophilus, H. and Jensen, K. L. (2012) ‘Enhancing cross-cultural participation through creative visual exploration’, in Halskov, K., Winschers-Theophilus, H., Lee, Y., Simonsen, J. and Bodker, K., eds., Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1, Roskilde, Denmark, 12 – 16 Aug., 2012, New York, ACM: 81 – 90.
The authors speak about the creation of a 3D visual interface of village in South Africa. Although not directly related to meSch, the paper highlights the strengths of having a common, detailed visual interface to demonstrate design ideas. When demonstrating a high fidelity prototype of the graphics interface, the elders from the village had expressed their dissatisfaction with the details, highlighting some common values that they had for the visual representation for their village. For meSch, it is important for us to share our design ideas with consortium partners with different values and wishes. Detailed, graphical representations could be an option that could help in portraying values relating to visual details and space.
Rossou, M., Kavalieratou, E. and Doulgeridis, M. (2007) ‘Children Designers in the Museum: Applying Participatory Design for the Development of an Art Education Program’, in Skov, M. B., chair, Proceedings on the 6th international conference of Interaction design and children, Aalborg, Denmark, 6 – 8 Jun., NY: ACM, 77 – 80.
This paper describes participatory design from a museum point of view. The authors of this paper discuss the involvement of children in the participatory design process. This study involved having children as designers of an online art education program for the National Gallery of Art in Athens. The design session lasted eight days; four of these days were dedicated to researching the museum and the remaining four for developing designs. During design, the children created storyboards and paper prototypes to demonstrate their ideas. My personal opinion is that we will have to focus on participatory design in a broad sense, but we can have some examples of PD from a museum context for the paper.
Taxen, G. (2004) ‘Introducing Participatory Design in Museums’, in Clement, A. and van den Basselaar, P., chairs, Proceedings on the eight conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices – Volume 1, Toronto, Canada, 27 – 31 Jul., NY: ACM, 204 – 213. (http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/258.pdf)
Participatory design methods to design museum exhibitions at the Vasa Museum in Stockholm. - includes visitors, cultural heritage professionals, researchers and designers. This paper describes how a set of participatory design methodologies have been introduced to and adopted for museum exhibition design. It outlines a number of reasons why participatory methods may be appropriate for museums, and two such methods are described: one for evaluation of exhibits, and one for exhibition concept development.
Hugo Fuks, Heloisa Moura, Debora Cardador, Katia Vega, Wallace Ugulino, and Marcos Barbato. 2012. Collaborative museums: an approach to co-design. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 681-684.
'Macdonald, S.(2007)'Interconnecting: museum visiting and exhibition design',CoDesign,3:1,149 — 162
The aim of this paper is to 1) review the approaches employed and 2) review the findings on museum visiting. It outlines the main directions reported in museum visitor studies which includes, a shift towards considering visitors as ‘active’ and looking at affective and embodied dimensions of the visitor experience as well as at the cognitive and ideational. It outlines visitor studies under 3 main categories 1) Visitor expectations connected to different types of media, addressing the linked matters of properties of media such as genre, authority, attention-getting and authenticity, 2) the significance of interacting with other visitors and how technology may undermine this and 3) the definition of a language of space in terms of how visitors experience an exhibition space.
'Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I. (2012) "Spaces for participatory creativity" CoDesign Vol. 8, Nos. 2–3, June–September 2012, 105–126
This paper focuses on creativity as a collective process, analysing how the different features of the complex set-up of participants, tools, urban issues to address and representations to work with stimulate or constrain participatory creativity. To illustrate the key findings, it uses the main insights from extensive ethnographic fieldwork studying design practice (Lainer and Wagner 1998, Wagner 2004) in that creativity in design rests on four main premises: the multiplicity of perspectives, openness, the ability to mobilise a diversity of resources and the desire to enrich the space of design ideas.
Bratteteig, T., Bodker, K., Dittrich, Y., Holst Mogensen, P., Simonsen, J. (2013) ‘Methods: Organising Principles and General Guidelines for Participatory Design Projects’, in Simonsen, J. and Robertson, T., eds., Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 117 – 144.
The authors speak of various methods for conducting participatory design projects, arguing that although many tools and techniques have been established, relatively little methods have been. They describe three methods, two of which relate to how meSch is currently conducting co-design activities: The MUST (developed by researchers at Roskilde University) method relies heavily on ethnographic research, understanding user context, and ensuring genuine user participation. Computer Experimental System Development (CESD) relies on the development of prototypes that act as boundary objects between the user and designer. meSch would benefit from a mixture of the two methods, seeing as we are developing a system that could potentially serve museums in the long term.
Steen, M. (2011) ‘Tensions in Human Centred Design’, CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 7(1), 45 – 60.
Steen focuses on two of the tensions that can occur between designers and participants in human-centred design projects: balancing users’/designers’ knowledge and ideas and balancing current understandings of practices and envisioning future ones. Human centred design focuses on understanding the practices of those affected by the final design and how designs can support those practices. In describing six different human centred methodologies (including co-design), Steen argues that critical reflection is needed and designers should be aware how their approach is affecting the data being gathered and analysed.
Kleinsmann, M. and Valkenburg, R. (2008) ‘Barriers and enablers for creating shared understandings in co-design projects’, Design Studies, 29(4), 369 – 386.
The authors argue that the creation of shared understandings relies on project management and organisation techniques, as well as face-to-face interactions. Discussing from experience from an automotive project, the authors note that the different backgrounds of each of the stakeholders altered the perception each of the stakeholders had on the technology. The interface (or means of communication) between stakeholders must be well chosen and established; if a stakeholder has a lack of understanding relating to a technology’s functionality, design or purpose, there can be significant delays in the design process. For meSch, it is important to identify what the barriers and enablers of design communication are in order to ensure the amount of unnecessary delays are limited.
- Hagenaars, B. & Huybrechts, L. (2013). Cultivating Communities Participatory scenario making: a tool for engaging and enabling local communities in reshaping their living environment. Crafting the Future. 10th European Academy of Design Conference.: 2013-04-17, Volume: 10, Issue: 1, Pages: 91-91
The paper presents a Participatory Design approach applied to dealing with environmental issues.They developed scenarios in collaboration with various stakeholders, and looked at ways to combine the narrative output with the visual and tangible output of design for reassembly. the final outcome is a kit for building tangible scenarios to address local environmental issues. The paper includes:
- 3 approaches in design: (1)design for assembly, (2)design for disassembly, (3) design for reassembly
- A description of post-industrial design
- A section on participatory design toolkits: Make Tools (Sanders 2000), Map It toolkit (Huybrechts et al 2011)
- Pastiche scenarios(Blythe 2006) and cultural probes(Gaver 1999) are also mentioned.
- Future studies scenarios: explorative, predictive and normative scenarios; Critical design
Hornecker, E. (2010) ‘Interactions around a contextually embedded system’, in Coelho, M. and Zigelbaum, J., chairs, Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded and embodied interaction, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 25 – 27 Jan., NY: ACM, 169 – 176.
Weal, M.J., Hornecker, E., Cruickshank, D.G., Michaelides, D.T., Millard, D.E., Halloran, J., De Roure, D.C., Fitzpatrick, G. (2006) ‘Requirements for In-situ Authoring of Location Based Experiences’, in Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI ’06, ACM: New York, NY, USA, 121–128. The authors talk about the testing and generating requirements for an in situ authoring tool. In particular, they mention the methods that they used to devise a PDA authoring system with curators at Chawton House. The workshops were held in situ with curators to understand the setting and practices. In the first workshop, the curators were provided and described the work they did; in the second workshop, they moved the activity to the grounds as they found the curators worked more naturally there and the curators would sometimes come up with stories inspired by other objects. Recordings were also made at this stage. At the third workshop, the recordings were played at particular locations. The fourth workshop provided a reflection session for curators. The workshops were semi-structured; curators also made suggestions as to what could happen next, ensuring requirements could be correctly identified.
Fischer, G. (2010) ‘Extending boundaries with meta-design and cultures of participation’ in Hvannberg, E. P. and Larusdottir, chairs, NordiCHI '10: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, 16 – 20 Oct., 2010, NY, USA: ACM Press, 168 – 177.
Fischer describes the effectiveness of meta-design in encouraging participation in design. Meta design is the process of designing a platform when it is in place, where the designers (or meta-designers) leave certain design decisions to the end user. Through analysing three case studies, Fischer argues that people are more engaged in the design if they feel it is personally meaningful. Furthermore, it is important that participants are part of the design process early on in order for them to feel control and ownership on the platform. This is important for meSch as we are designing an adaptable platform for heritage professionals. To ensure the platform is a success to at least those involved in the project, it is important that the CHPs feel that their input is valued and meaningful for the project. Furthermore, it is also important that the final design choices open up opportunities that are meaningful for their work.
Piller, F., Ihl, C., Fuller, J., Stotko, C. (2004) ‘Toolkits for open innovation-the case of mobile phone games’, in System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE, 10–20.
Through theoretical analysis, the authors describe the benefits of toolkits for: supporting open innovation; supporting social user relationships and collaborative prototyping; and for increasing business success. They describe these factors with reference to the ‘usertool game creator’, a toolkit for creating mobile games that promotes the sharing of ideas and collaborative creation amongst people with various levels of technical knowledge. Although not empirically tested, they argue that toolkits can provide benefits for users and suppliers, as they can: allow for fast changes and creative, personalised design; be a source of revenue, if businesses decide to sell the toolkit as part of a package; and promote a diversified business model, as users can alter the technical features to suit their desires.
Petrelli, D., Ciolfi, L., van Dijk, D., Hornecker, E., Not, E. and Schmidt, A. (2013). 'Integrating material and digital: a new way for cultural heritage.' Interactions 20, 4 (July 2013), 58-63. , http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2486227.2486239
Ciolfi, L.(2013). 'The Collaborative Work of Heritage: Open Challenges for CSCW'. In et al. (eds.): ECSCW 2013: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, September 2013, Paphos, Cyprus. London: Springer
This paper discusses seminal contributions by CSCW in the study of cultural heritage practices. It presents key issues relating to social and cooperative interactions—particularly around the design and use of technology—at heritage sites It calls for a re-definition of heritage in light of the social and collaborative practices that have arisen in recent years within the museum and heritage professionals community, and the emergence of new roles and practices for organisations, staff, visitors and related stakeholders. The paper calls for CSCW contributions to future research in this domain.
Ciolfi, L. and Bannon, L. J. (2007) ‘Designing Hybrid Places: Merging Interaction Design, Ubiquitous Technologies and Geographies of the Museum Space’, CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 3(3), 159 – 180.
Ciolfi and Bannon discuss the roles space, place and location play in the development of interactions in the museum space. The authors argue that technological exhibits have been hindering rather than aiding a positive museum experience and ought to blend with the space they are placed in. The environment an exhibit is placed in also affords and constrains certain interactive actions. Furthermore, museums contain a lot of social activity and exhibits should encourage a level of social interaction. These are things we should consider when conducting studies for meSch.
Ciolfi, L. and McLoughlin, M. (2011) ‘Design Interventions for Open-Air Museums: Applying and Extending the Principles of “Assembly” ' Proceedings of CHI 2011
Use a case study to demonstrate an approach to designing and deploying technologies to support visitor activities in exhibition spaces. Focuses on the concept of "assembly" and how it was extended and applied to develop an interactive installation for an open-air museum. The concept of assembly is how to design systems that incorporate multiple heterogeneous points of interaction working together to support a coherent visit in a larger site. Argue how the "assembly" approach is particularly suited to open-air visit scenarios
Hornecker, E. (2010) ‘Interactions around a contextually embedded system’, in Coelho, M. and Zigelbaum, J., chairs, Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded and embodied interaction, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 25 – 27 Jan., NY: ACM, 169 – 176.
This paper presents two versions of the same exhibit. The exhibit, which was displayed in the Museum of Natural History in Berlin, was presented in two ways: through a screen and through a telescope-like device. Since the telescope blocked the surrounding environment, the visitors were more immersed with the exhibit. However, the screen presentation allowed for further social interactions. When designing a platform for meSch, we must keep in mind what levels of social interaction may be happening when cultural heritage professionals are using the platform.
Kalay, Y., Kvan, T. and Affleck, J., eds., New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage, London: Routledge.
The employment of new technology often fails to capture the complexity of intangible cultural heritage (customs, rituals) and the related social, political and economic issues surroundings the sites or artifacts. Digital media could be utilized for much more than re-creation and re-presentation of physical entities. It has the capacity to become a tool to capture both the tangible and intangible essence of both the cultural heritage and the society that created it.
Kalay, Y. (2008) ‘Preserving cultural heritage through digital media’, in Kalay, Y., Kvan, T. and Affleck, J., eds., New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage, London: Routledge.
In this chapter, Kalay describes the implications digital media has on the preservation and communication of cultural heritage. Through digital media, cultural heritage can be preserved inexpensively and previously prohibited areas or artefacts can be explored freely. However, converting physical artefacts to digital formats can also result in the loss of detail, context, and authenticity. This raises an interesting question for the meSch project: what levels of detail are lost when converting this information back into the physical space? How can the context of the artefact be brought back when converting the digital information to the physical space?
Walter Benjamin (1968). Hannah Arendt, ed. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Illuminations. London: Fontana. pp. 214–218.
'Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.' He argues that the "sphere of authenticity is outside the technical" so that the original artwork is independent of the copy, yet through the act of reproduction something is taken from the original by changing its context. He thus introduces the idea of the "aura" of a work and its absence in a reproduction.
Halloran, J., Hornecker, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Weal, M., Millard, D., Michaelides, D., Cruickshank, D., De Roure, D., "unfolding Understandings: co-designing ubicomp in situ, over time" http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1150000/1142423/p109-halloran.pdf?ip=220.127.116.11&id=1142423&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=846C3111CE4A4710%2E2C2349ADB1824AA1%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=424046920&CFTOKEN=59131663&__acm__=1395230286_940fabcd215b9281b99868b0ac7bf1ec
Vom Lehn, D., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., and Heath, C. (2007) ‘Engaging Constable: revealing art with new technology’, in Rosson, M. B. and Gilmore, D., chairs, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07), 28 Apr. – 3 May, 2007, New York: ACM Press, 1485 – 1494.
This paper describes observations of visitor interactions around two interactive installations showcasing John Constable’s work at the Tate Gallery London. One of the installations consisted of a gestural interface while the other consisted of a touch screen panel; both of these were connected to a projector. The researchers analysed the interactions in terms of how it initially engaged people, how they affected the overall museum space, and how they engaged social interactivity. The researchers found that people rarely interacted with the installations alone; even if the visitors were alone, a witness observed another visitor using it. Furthermore, the systems opened up new forms of engagement for the visitors. The paper also highlights some assumptions that curators/designers shy away from screen-based technologies as they may be too obtrusive.
- Dan Cosley, Jonathan Baxter, Soyoung Lee, Brian Alson, Saeko Nomura, Phil Adams, Chethan Sarabu, and Geri Gay. 2009.A tag in the hand: supporting semantic, social, and spatial navigation in museums. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1953-1962.
The paper describes the deployment of MobiTags, a system to help museum visitors interact with a collection of "open storage" exhibits, those where the museum provides little curatorial information. The tags allow annotation by visitors, include art information from curators, and include a map to support navigation and collaborative curation. Empirical study of 23 people's use of MobiTags in a local museum, combining interview data with device use logs and tracking of people's movements to understand how MobiTags affected their navigation and experience in the museum.
Bardzell,S, Rosner, D, K, Bardzell, J, (2012) Crafting Quality in Design:Integrity, Creativity, and Public Sensibility DIS 2012, June 11-15, 2012, Newcastle, UK
Considerations for how they perceive and produce quality, by turning to the techniques and values of master craftspeople. The crafters articulate a consensus view of interaction with integrity. American participants tend to frame their understanding of quality in terms of self-expression through a creative interaction with materials, while participants from Taiwan emphasize the role of communities in establishing— and benefitting from—craft quality. As HCI continues to turn to design approaches on account of their strengths producing works of socio-cultural relevance and value, our study sheds light on the qualities of interacting with integrity, the pleasures of self-expression through creative interaction with materials, and the practical benefits of positioning creative work in relation to the material resources, aesthetic tastes, and socio-economic needs of a public.
In , for example, Löwgren and Stolterman describe the cultivation of design ability through, among other activities, developing a “sense of quality.” This sense of quality includes an insightful appreciation for and ability to create quality. Not a skill some are just born with, this “sense of quality has to be developed, continuously challenged, and improved” [p. 58].
The analysis identifies three framings of craft quality. One shared sociomaterial framing of pleasure in engagement with materials, one creative-expressionist framing of linking innovation to personal identity, and one public framing linking skilled use of community resources to community aesthetic sensibilities. Each vision appears to speak to interaction design in different ways.
Hornecker, E. and Buur, J., ‘Getting a Grip on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on Physical Space and Social Interaction’, Proceedings of CHI 2006
The research community lacks concepts for analyzing and understanding the social aspects of tangible interaction and design knowledge on how to design so as to support social interaction and collaboration. Looks at tangible interaction systems that rely on embodied interaction, tangible manipulation, physical representation of data, and embeddedness in real space. Introduces a framework that focuses on the interweaving of the material/physical and the social aspects of interaction. Analyzes three case studies, using the framework, thereby illustrating the concepts and demonstrating their utility as analytical tools.
Gershenfeld, N. (2005) Fab: The Coming Revolution to your Desktop – from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication, NY: Basic Books.
Gershenfeld describes the different kinds of fabrication devices in this book. Subtractive fabrication devices remove elements of a material to create an artefact; for example, a laser cutter removes material through heated light and waterjet cutters. Additive fabrication devices add material layer by layer to produce a 3D artefact; for example, 3D printers use additive methods to produce output. Finally, equality fabrication devices neither remove nor add material; they simply mould the material to form the right shape. The type of device used depends on the output desired. This is something we will have to consider for meSch.
Lieberman, H., Paternó, F., Klann, M. and Wulf, V. (2006) ‘End User Development: An Emerging Paradigm’, End User Development: Human Computer Interaction Series, 9, 1 – 8.
The authors describe End User Development (EUD) in this paper, whereby systems are designed so that end users can create, re-purpose or modify systems. EUD is necessary because it is hard to predict the needs of each individual end user. However, high levels of programming cannot be expected from most end users, and we cannot assume they will hold the skills or interest to learn to the same level as a software engineer. Therefore, EUD systems should provide a “gentle slope” of complexity; this model should allow end users use the system with ease initially and perform more complex tasks as the end user becomes familiar with the system. As we are developing a platform that should be easily re-configurable by cultural heritage professionals, we need to keep this in mind when developing the system.
Lipson, H. and Kurman, M. (2010) Factory @ Home: The Emerging Economy of Personal Fabrication, Washington D.C.: US Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The authors describe the concept of personal fabrication, and its potential benefits for the economy and society. Personal Fabrication devices are smaller and cheaper than traditional manufacturing devices, and allow people to create their own personal products. The range of devices available includes 3D printers, laser cutters, programmable sewing machines and desktop circuit makers. These, along with easier to use Computer Aided Design (CAD) software, have made it easier to manufacture on a personal scale. For the meSch project, we will need to access how CAD software and digital fabrication technologies can be altered for the use of cultural heritage professionals.
Maly, T. (2012) ‘Geeking Out on Materials: 3D Print Circuits With Innovative Conductive Plastic’, Wired, 28 Nov., available: http://www.wired.com/design/2012/11/conductive-plastic/ [accessed 06 Mar 2013].
The authors of this site describe Carbomorph, a material that can be used in the 3D printing process to generate digital circuits. The aim of the project was to create a material that is simple enough to use for hobbyists, so they can print their own circuits easily. For many cultural heritage professionals, the process of developing or modifying interactive installations would be very new. As part of meSch, we should aim to keep up to date developments that could potentially aid cultural heritage professionals in creating and modifying interactive experiences.
Pescovitz, D. (2008) The Future of Making: The Way Things are Made is being Remade, Palo Alto, CA: Institute for the Future.
This article describes how the revolution in digital fabrication has changed the way people design. Through digital fabrication, people can design their own complex artefacts; furthermore, it gives people a chance to become expert designers as people are provided with further access to tools for making. Although the final product may be personal, the author argues that social interaction in personal making triggers creative thinking. For meSch, it’s important to access what levels of complexity do current easy-to-use technologies afford and if cultural heritage professionals have a desire to create on a collaborative basis.
Spahn, M., Dorner, C., and Wulf, V. (2008) ‘End User Development: Approaches Toward a Flexible Software Design’ in Golden, W., Acton, T., Conboy, K., van der Heijden, H., Tuunainen, V. K., eds., Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland, 9 – 11 June, available: http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20080027.pdf.
When creating systems that are designed for end user creation, re-purposing or modification, the systems should be designed with flexibility in mind. Furthermore, it should be noted that the end user developers might have varied skill levels. Some end user developers may have high levels of computing knowledge while others may not have much experience using computers. Therefore, when developing a platform for encouraging cultural heritage professionals to create, re-purpose or modify interactive experiences, we should keep in mind the varied skill levels of our end users.
- Kyungsik Han, Patrick C. Shih, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M. Carroll. 2014.Enhancing community awareness of and participation in local heritage with a mobile application. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (CSCW '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1144-1155.
- newly evolved ICT platforms have the ability to augment interactions among people and their local history, and digital cultural heritage has emerged as an opportunity for engaging civic participation in creating and preserving community heritage.
- Research in mobile tourism has stressed the importance of sociability on enhancing tourism experience [5,21]. We build on this notion as well as adding four specific social features (visits, likes, comments, and photo sharing)
- goal of project-to explore user interactions and experiences with such an application in the context of community heritage.