a theory of discursive interaction designfolk.ntnu.no/tao/oritsland_thesis.pdf · 5.1 why build a...

A T H E O R Y O F D I S C U R S I V E I N T E R A C T I O N D E S I G N

Mapping the development of quality and style in man machine interaction

Doctoral Thesisby

Trond Are Øritsland

Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Product Design Engineering

Trondheim 1999

II A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN

© Trond Are ØritslandDepartment of Product Design Engineering,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Trondheim, 1999

Doktor ingeniøravhandling 1999:115ISBN 82-471-0490-3

ISSN 0802-3271

Text and layout: Microsoft Word 98 for MacintoshSet in Times 11pt and Helvetica bold 12pt

Figures: Adobe Photoshop 4.0, Macromedia Director 4.0 and Excel 98Printed by Tapir Trykk

Cover: Wennbergs Trykkeri, design Bruno Oldani

III

Abstract

With the advance of information and communication technology, theresponsibility for creating interaction between man and machine is shiftingfrom the user to the designer. As a result it is necessary to discuss whatinteraction is, and how to conduct a systematic interaction design process.This thesis takes as a starting point the theory of the WDK School ofEngineering Design, but finds it is necessary to go beyond this theory’spreconditions in order to describe an interaction design process. Theoriesfrom the fields of aesthetics, style theory, semiotics, and human computerinteraction are explored in empirical studies to understand how designers candevelop quality and style in interaction experiences.From a phenomenological perspective any description of interaction will usemodels that are abstracted or simplified to some degree as signs of the actualinteraction experience. The models mark a discursive process in which themeaning of interaction is continually evolving, rather then being derived fromthe technical effects in a man machine system. These factors are described ina Theory of Discursive Interaction Design that is operationalized as aDiscourse Map. The map is used to describe discursive processes andnavigational decisions during interaction design. It creates a basis for judgingthe operational value of interaction models and discussing the strategies andtrends of interaction design.As an empirical study and verification of the theory, two cases of empathicinteraction design are reviewed. The Discourse Map is used to discussalternative design procedures at a detailed level as well as a strategic level.

IV A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN

V

Preface

Even before the Department of Product Design Engineering (IPD) wasestablished, in 1994, a commitment was made to develop three areas ofresearch deemed strategically important for the future of product design:design methodology, environmentally sound products, and man machineinteraction (MMI). The scholarship for initiating activities in MMI wasgranted by the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) for a period of threeyears, followed by a further two years supported by IPD itself. In addition agrant from the NFR for equipping a usability lab and a multi media interfacesimulator was followed up by IPD with purpose built rooms for the lab whenthe department moved into its new building in late 1996.

In return, during the course of the scholarship IPD has established a networkto MMI researchers in Scandinavia. The lab has been built and is being usedfor research and education. A second year course in ergonomics and a thirdyear course in MMI have been developed and are being taught every term.Teaching material in Norwegian has been written for both courses. The resultis that ergonomics and interaction design have become a active part of thestudents knowledge and competency, which is substantiated by the fact that anumber of fourth year and masters degree projects have been initiated andcarried out by interested students, and that a number of students have decidedto develop their careers in this direction.

The primary goal of IPD´s continued research in MMI is to contribute toincreasing product designers professional competency at interaction design.During the scholarship period, preliminary work has been completed towardsa more comprehensive research program in Man Machine Interaction.

This dissertation concludes this first step of IPD´s strategic research program.I hope NFR has found the investment worth while, and thank them for theopportunity to do it all.

Trond Are ØritslandTrondheim, 5. April 1999

VI A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN

Acknowledgments

While waiting at the Nesodden ferry in Oslo to pick up my spouse UrdSchjetne one dark, and rainy night (!) in the late winter of 1993/94 my formertutor in industrial design, Didier Aubry took refuge in my car. He told methat a new Department of Product Design Engineering in Trondheim waslooking for people for three scholarships. There in the car he sowed the seedby arguing for me to apply. I did, and started work in June 1994. Both beforeand after that evening I have had many interesting discussions with Didier. Hegives freely of his knowledge and sets Norwegian design culture in a thoughtprovoking perspective.

I would like to thank the following people for contributing to this thesis:Urd provided the love and the leeway for all my late nights and long periodsof single-mindedness. One sentence of thanks seems meaningless in thatcontext.

Jacob Buur and the people at the Danfoss User Centered Design groupprovided focus, information and an image to live up to. I am in great debt ofgratitude to Jacob for the energy and interest he has invested in my work, andgreatly appreciate the hospitality he and his family have shown me.

Per Boelskifte dared trust me and set the ball rolling. Johannes Sigurjonsonprovided constructive critique and the quiet encouragement to keep at it. DagSvanes had a lot of inspiring thoughts on the nature of interaction and thetrends in HCI. Øystein Gutu was always there with optimistic and creativeideas, no matter the time of day or theme in my mind. Erik Lerdahl gave memany interesting discussions on the nature of creativity and empathy indesign. Annegerd Liseth gave me a shoulder to look over and confirmed myexperiences of life as a dr.ing student. Nils Are Øritsland gave critique andencouragement beyond all expectations. He is becoming a well-informeddesign theoretician after having had to listen to me for so long... Thanks to allof you!

I would also like to thank the students who allowed me to involve them in mywork: Kjersti Stølan, Tore Kvande Pedersen, Hallgrim Sagen, Anne-LiseHauge-Nilsen, Elizabeth Strand all contributed through project work andsummer jobs. A special recognition goes to Henrik Hem Orskaug, BirgitPedersen, and Lars Hurlen who listened to my foggy ideas but still producedexcellent Hovedoppgaver (Degree projects for the Sivilingeniør title)Thanks also to all the students taking part in my Mennesker Maskiner coursein '95, '96 and '97 for being subject to my learning process.

VII

¸Berg og båre

Der kor berg og båre brytesblir det melodia

Alt fra løstig sommerlåttel såre symfonia

Kvasse klippe knuses sundog smuldre bort i sandaMen her fins óg steinasom e god å ha i handa

Der kor berg og båre brytesvil det altid tære

på den skjøre smale stripamella flo og fjære

Men det går å leve herVi kan ha i minneat uendelige slag

vil ingen kunne vinne

Der kor berg og båre bryteskommer også sangen

langveisfra med seil av sølvheist av solnedgangen

Der den gamle kampen ståråpne sæ det nye

skapt av sjø og stein og sårog lys fra morragryet

av Ola og Kari Bremnes"En rød for alt det søte" Aschehoug, Oslo, 1996

VIII A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN

IX

Contents

Abstract III

Preface V

Acknowledgments VI

Contents IX

1.0 Introduction 11.1 Designing information rich user interfaces is a growing challenge 31.2 Interaction is more than the user interface 81.3 Engineering design theory 111.4 A preliminary definition of style 191.5 Interaction design raises problems of philosophy and scientific tradition201.6 The purpose and goals of this thesis 261.7 The structure of the thesis 29

2.0 Method 332.1 General research method 352.2 Material 382.3 Empirical methods 392.4 Verification of design theory 42

3.0 In search of interaction quality 453.1 Looking for the building blocks of interaction quality 473.2 Three studies of interaction quality 563.3 A complete model of interaction as a design object 693.4 Interaction is a process of giving meaning to a transformation system 763.5 Conclusion: Quality is indivisible from interaction 78

4.0 The multiple concepts of interaction style 834.1 Style has many applications and meanings 854.2 What is interaction style? 954.3 Is style an operational term for interaction design? 1054.3 A study of the additive style concept in interaction design 1064.4 A study of the categorizing style concept in interaction design 1214.5 A study of the socio-technical style concept in interaction design 1344.6 The problem of styling 1564.7 Conclusion 164

5.0 Proposal for a Theory of Discursive Interaction Design 1675.1 Why build a discussion of interaction design on domains and models? 1695.2 The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design describes the usersperspective 1715.3 The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design sorts understanding intofour domains 1735.4 The relationship between the domains is discursive 1775.5 How to use the Discourse Map 1835.6 Models in the Discourse Map 1875.7 Similarities between the Theory of Discursive Interaction Design and theDomain Theory of Technical Systems 2035.8 Conclusion 204

6.0 Application of the Theory of Discursive Interaction Design 2076.1 Introduction - using the Discourse Map in practice 2096.2 An analysis of three levels of style thinking in interaction design 209

X A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN

6.3 The Danfoss Smart Window workshop – circling all four domains 2136.3 The Intervett Time Capture project – linear design 2276.4 Design strategies – comparison of the two cases 2456.5 Conclusion 247

7.0 Conclusion 2517.1 A summary of the results 2537.2 Discussion – what is the value of the results? 2587.3 What are the contributions of the thesis? 2597.4 Further work 262

References 265

List of abbreviations 275

Appendix A – Paper for ICED 99 277

Appendix B – Terminology 286

Appendix C – List of information sources 295

Appendix D – Description of the usability laboratory at the Department ofProduct Design Engineering 301

XII A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN

1.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the research problem. The scope is defined in relation toproduct type in the fields of human computer interaction and engineeringdesign. The concept of interaction is presented in contrast to user interfaceand a theoretical starting point is established in engineering design. Theconcept of style is introduced.The question of choosing a scientific perspective is addressed since interactiondesign falls between conventional categories. A phenomenological perspectiveis chosen for its ability to explain interaction as a separate and primary designobject.Finally, research questions, hypothesis and goals are explained before thechapter concludes with an overview of the structure and contents of the thesis.

2 A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN

INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 Designing information rich user interfaces is agrowing challengeNew developments in technology are creating needs and opportunities foruser interfaces the world has never seen before. These developments are dueto the increasing computing power to price ratio of microprocessors, thedevelopment of mechatronic design methodology and know-how; and thedevelopment and proliferation of network technologies such as internet orproduct specific networks installed in e.g. vehicles or process plants.

Figure 1: A Sony VRD and a Leica digital camera - two examples of the trends towards wearable

computing and microprocessor enhanced products

Since the point in history when programming became abstracted from thefunctions of mechanisms and electronic circuits, the computer has followed itsown line of development. Meanwhile, electronic and mechanical productshave fused into mechatronics. With the falling cost of IC’s small computershave recently become accessible to handle the input of all the refined,compact and reliable sensors that have been developed. After decades apart,these two development lines are converging again in the nineties. Both fieldsare now developing new interface technology by combining mechanical,hydraulic/pneumatic and electrical mechanisms with the informationprocessing power of computers. Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is on thebrink of moving on from the screen and the Graphic User Interface (GUI)developed in the Xerox Star project in 1981 towards Tangible User Interfaces(TUI) as described by e.g. Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer (1997). They see“the locus of computation shifting in two major directions: i) onto ourskins/bodies ii) into the real physical world”. The driving force seems to be acombination of market pull as the qualitative information poverty of GUI’smakes usability a major competitive issue, and the technology push ofnetwork development and computing power.

Similarly, product design of Solid User Interfaces (SUI’s) as described by e.g.Jacob Buur and Allison Black (1995), focuses on the problem of interactingthrough the physically limited user interfaces of smart tools such as VCRsphotocopiers or cellular phones. The driving forces they identify are similarto those in computer systems development:• HCI is evolving towards smaller PDA´s• Industrial products, once the stand-alone domain of blue-collar users, are

being integrated into organizational data handling systems. So theproblems of SUI’s are now set in the wider context of essential computingsystems.

• Design for usability has not kept up with the increase in functionalitycreating a crisis of usability that is hard to ignore. This results in usabilitybecoming an increasing asset as a marketing argument


Although they are converging, the development of mechatronic SUI’s and ITGUI’s still have some major differences, Buur and Black say. While limitedwhen compared function by function against GUI’s; SUI’s have a range ofdesign opportunity all their own, which makes them better suited for someapplications:• SUI’s can be more than just push buttons and sliders. It is possible to

exploit fully the capabilities of the hand and fingers. Research into tactile,and force-feedback indicates a new interest in the possibilities ofinformation rich response.

• SUI’s can be custom designed to support a specific activity• SUI’s can use 3D layout as well as graphics to facilitate functional

understanding.• SUI’s provide greater opportunity for design of product identity and

corporate image by exploiting the whole product as well as its behavior.

Patch & Smalley (1998) discuss the trend towards embedded systems,networks connecting all kinds of products with microprocessors to each otherand point out an important consequence for designers:Due to the physical products being parts of different work systems, designerswill have to reevaluate how the physical world is divided and organizedtogether with the interested parties. The occupational barriers between existingfields will have to be redefined. The design problem becomes; who isresponsible for maintaining and developing the network functions? Andwhich functions are parts of which product?E.g. the lighting in a building is connected to the ventilation, and when thestove is turned on the central heating is turned down, and when there issomething interesting on TV the stove has to warn the user that it has beenforgotten, etc.....

To illustrate the landscape of Information Technology products and userinterfaces that is emerging, Table 1 below maps some of the variables, andexemplifies the directions we are moving in. Information and communicationtechnology is being applied to wearable, task specific products. Withcomputing and communication power being distributed to personal, everydayproducts, designers are influencing peoples style of interacting and contributeto creating a style of human activity.

INTRODUCTION 5

Table 1: Information technology development: We are moving towards wearable computers andsmart tools that are task specific, but capable of more than basic utilities

General use Task SpecificStationary

We may increase thepotential of the userinterface by totallysubmerging the user in asynthetic environment likein this game of VR tennis:

(Capin et.al 1998)

A desktop computer withmouse, keyboard and screenis used for all applications thatcan be represented andmanipulated within theconfines of the screeninterface

A process plant is operated bydedicated user interfaces oneach piece of equipment, anda purpose built computersystem.

(Palo Verde NuclearGenerating Station controlroom for simulation andtraining.)

Portable

Controlling a virtual 3Dmodel with a hand held see-through display and trackingdevice (Rekimoto 1996)

Reducing size to a portableformat quickly reaches thelower limit of generalusability necessitating a focuson specific tasks. Comparethe applications on Laptop,Palmtop and PDA computers

Tools such as multi-metersand other measuringinstruments, cameras,electronic toys and gadgetsare employingmicroprocessors to increasefunctionality

WearableVirtual reality superimposed on the real worldbecomes augmented reality

An automobile engine isseen through VR glasseswith tags hovering in the air,that identify the engine'scomponents (Breen 1994)

Interfaces such as retinascanning displays allowlimited display of generalinformation. Similarly, gazetracking will allow a modicumof control.

Prosthesis such as eyeglassesor artificial limbs and organs,or diving suits andexoskeletons compensate fordisabilities or extend ourcapabilities.


Automation could be mapped as a third dimension to this matrix. In “HumanFactors” Kantowitz & Sorkin (1983) look at function allocation betweenman and machine as four levels of technology according to who is providingthe input of power, control, information and evaluation. As an example, takethe introduction of mechatronics, and later IT and networks to a product suchas the simple, mechanical camera (Figure 2). With the arrival of electronics,cameras could do more of the task themselves (Automation of exposure,focus and film winding). Introducing IT resulted in cameras providing agreater variety of functions by moving toward generalization. For instance bydigitizing the picture the "film" may be reviewed, edited and stored beforedeciding on making a photograph. In a future of embedded systems, acamera may be linked directly to a printer in another city without the addedtrouble to the user, of transferring pictures via the computers and networks inbetween. Everything may be done automatically by the camera exceptdeciding what picture to take.

Figure 2: Three different camera technologies: mechanical, mechatronic and digital

Designers must create suitable interaction experiencesAs the functionality of products grows, the information that it generates loadsus down. It becomes necessary to let the machine sort it out and present it in aformat suited for human action. This format should encompass multi-sensory,qualitative information, providing for inductive reasoning and the humanability to pick out patterns and sense the unusual or unexpected in anenvironment of information noise. In short, information should be adapted tothe special abilities of human beings, not just physically, and perceptually, butcognitively and emotionally. When contemplating the richness of estheticexperience and affordances for action in real, physical objects, it becomesevident that the ever increasing processing power, communication speed andbandwidth of information technology still has a long way to go before asimilar information richness and diversity of expression may be achieved inSUI’s, on the screen, or in a virtual reality rig.

Buur & Windum (1994) describe three trends connected to microprocessortechnology that alter the conditions for man machine dialogue and pose newchallenges to designer:• Software and electronics take over many of the operations the user

previously handled. This necessitates transferring knowledge and know-how from the user to the designer. The user now has to interact bycommunicating intention rather than issuing simple commands.

• As costs of microprocessors fall, it becomes inexpensive to build morefunctions into the product. This means that more choices must becommunicated through the interface: The amount of exchangedinformation will be greater.

INTRODUCTION 7

• Electronic functions are invisible to the user. This means that the designermust build inn information about the function and state of the productand design artificial feedback. At all times the interface must give the userresponses to his actions and tell him how the product works.

Although these challenges are universal, their character and severity changewith the type of product in question. Crampton Smith (1993) states that thenarrative of the interface, or the story the designer wants the user to believe,increases in degrees of freedom as one moves from mechanical machines, viamechatronics to the computer. “The workings of mechanical machines areobvious - pull a lever here, press another there, fill up the boiler, adjust thepressure. Actions have an overt relationship to what happens. Electro-mechanical machines operate more opaquely, but the actions needed tocontrol them bear some relationship to the physical changes necessary for itsoperation: make a contact here, varying resistors there.A computer on the other hand, offers few external clues to its operation andno necessary correspondence between the controls and their feedback. Wecan program the feedback to appear however we like. So how the virtualmachine is represented to users determines their ability to use it. In a sense,the interface is the tool.” In the whole specter of fields from engineeringdesign via industrial design, to sculpture and painting, the artifact hastraditionally been treated as a static object that may be looked at, touched orhandled in a limited, predetermined way. Communication between man andartifact has essentially been a one way process. The artifact sits there and it isup to the human to make it do things. The same has been the case with thedynamic arts of film, theater, dance and music. The performer has full controlof the dynamic experience and the spectator is a passive viewer of the activity.With interaction between man and computer, the designer stands before acompletely new challenge: Through the products they make, designers createor contribute to creating the actions, the intentions and the story the userexperiences as reality. Products are not only valued for fulfilling usersutilitarian needs, but also for the meanings and the experience of interactionthey represent and realize for the user. By doing things in a certain way orwith a certain product, users may position themselves in a social and culturalcomplex of values. For instance, downhill skiing with a snowboard isculturally as well as experiencially different from skiing with slalom skis. Thefirst refers to skateboarding and surfing, while the second refers to traditionalcross-country skiing and Telemark skiing. The right interaction should createexperiences that users are familiar with, that they want to seek out, or that theywill appreciate experiencing.Since the new machines of information and communication technology, likeusers, function in communities, and interrelate in a complex manner, thedesigner will influence activity in a social environment to a greater degreethan with simple objects like skis. The e-mail system for example, has createda completely new form of communication. It is not simply letters in acomputerized form. The media of e-mail has become more informal than aletter, better considered than an answering machine message but less personalthan a phone call. From the trends and challenges I have sketched, I concludethat designers need to master a new art of designing for interaction. Theyneed to understand how the individual interaction qualities they create, worktogether to create a style of interaction between man and machine, andultimately contribute to a style of human activity. The primary researchquestions of this thesis therefore become: How does the designer influenceinteraction quality? And, how do designers influence a style of interaction ina social context?


1.2 Interaction is more than the user interfaceThe concept of “interaction” between computer system and human iscurrently a buzzword of information and communication technology.Interactivity has the same appeal that “user friendliness” had in the eighties,and “turbo” in the seventies only more so. It’s used for office applicationsand machines, but also as a feature of entertainment applications such as“Interactive CD-ROM's” and communications such as telephones, internet orchatting over the garden fence. The term is used in conjunction with holisticand empathic perspectives on activities that were previously thought ofmechanistically. Popularly it has come to connote a value-oriented way ofacting, seeking experience rather than utility and efficiency. For the purposeof this thesis we will need a more precise understanding of the term. Thissection approaches the term interaction as a characteristic of interfaces and asa phenomena of interpreting experiences. It proposes a preliminary definitionthat integrates the two views.

In the context of system design, the term is taken to mean that the systemgives complex choices and responses to the user. Not only simple commandsand mechanical or electrical feedback. In the design professions, the terminteraction often denotes the same thing as “interface”. The difference isonly that the interactive interface is made to support more complex feedbackand larger freedom of choice. Hede Markussen (1995) substantiates this bypointing out that differentiation between interface and interaction does notexist in today’s industrial product development environment or in large partsof the scientific community. In stead, it is common practice to describeinteraction only as a result of manipulating interface organs. “It is seen asbeing built into the technical system, i.e. the product. In other wordsinteraction quality may be read out of a study of the product in isolation”(authors translation).

Figure 3: The difference between interface and interaction (after Verplank et.al 1993)

Verplank et.al (1993), point out that it is important to make the distinctionbetween interface and interaction because it will add precision to the designprocess. But why does this mixing of terms occur?

Interaction is a process of interpretation and evaluationLooking at a typical illustration of a man machine system may provide ananswer; Figure 4 represents the user and the product as a closed functionalloop of information transfer. In this way, the interface becomes the centralelement of the system since it transfers all the information. If interaction is thewhole loop, then the interface defines the nature of the interaction processwhich may be seen simply as information processing, since informationsignals are all that passes through the interface.

INTRODUCTION 9

Figure 4: “A man machine system means that the man and his machine have a reciprocalrelationship with each other” (Grandjean, 1986) This understanding of the man machine

system focuses attention on the interface as a means of transferring information.

Usually the physical characteristics of the objects that meet the user are theonly elements of a system called the user interface. But the physical interfaceis only one of the elements in a product that the designer influences, and theuser perceives. Redmond-Pyle and Moore (1995 pp. 11-12) refer to IBM'siceberg model. It illustrates the multi-layered nature of the usersunderstanding of the machine system. “The Look and Feel is what isimmediately visible. But beneath this, there is a large structure of objects,relationships and behavior. The mental model is concerned with the usersunderstanding of the submerged part of the iceberg” ... “According to IBMthe structure and behavior of underlying objects, and the way these arerepresented in the interface, makes the most significant contribution to aproducts usability (accounting for as much as 60%)”

10% Presentation Visual Representation, Aesthetics30% Interaction Interaction techniques, Device mappings, Standard

menus60% Object

relationshipsProperties, Behaviors, Common metaphors

Now, if the users mental model is central to product usability, then maybeinteraction lies in the mind of the user. Donald Norman (1988) provides analternative description of the process that takes place between user andmachine, based on theories of cognitive psychology (Figure 5). He describesusing a product as bridging a gap, a discrepancy, between the users goals andmotivations, and the preprogrammed, and therefore limited, possibilities forreaction in the machine system. Bridging the gap necessitates a consciousinterpretation of goals by the user, transforming them into an actionspecification based on the possibilities at hand. Then, after the machine hasstarted working, the user must read the feedback from the machine, interpret itand evaluate it in relationship to her goals and intentions. Norman’s way ofseeing the man machine system brings forth interpretation, incompatibilityand uncertainty as central factors that identify interaction.


Figure 5: The bridge of evaluation (from Norman 1988)

The interface is still important because it must communicate the limitedresponses of the machine, based on its underlying structures of informationand preprogrammed reactions. But interaction does not denote a type of userinterface or a property of the product. It is a phenomenon that occurs in themeeting between humans and technical systems in a social and physicalcontext.

To summarize, we stand before two perspectives: Seeing interaction as theresult of object properties and an ability to transfer information - the objectbeing the man machine system, or alternatively seeing interaction as the usersinterpretation of actions in relation to goals. Both of them describe parts ofthe phenomena of interaction. As a preliminary definition, I propose that:

Interaction is a strife1 between the users goals, intentions and interpretation onone hand, and the perception of effects in the man machine system on theother hand.

Because of these two perspectives it is important to be clear aboutterminology: I will use the term properties to signify the characteristics ofphysical objects and effects, as in product properties. The term phenomenawill be used to signify characteristics of interactions that may be subjective,and impossible to observe directly in experimental set-ups, as in interactionphenomena.

1 The term strife is used to signify an unharmonious meeting; an opposition, dissention,discord or possibly even a struggle.

INTRODUCTION 11

1.3 Engineering design theoryBeing a thesis in product design engineering, a relationship to an establishedtheory of design is desirable so that I can build on existing knowledge instead of starting from scratch.

The Workshop Design Konstruktion (WDK) school of engineering design is aconsistent and comprehensive structure of theories that is useful in bothdesign education and practice. It prescribes a systematic design process basedon the assumption that a design problem is generalizeable and reducible. Inthis school of thinking, the nature of a design object should be describable asa causal relationship between properties, and provide a basis for reasoningabout design processes and solutions. The introductory textbook: “A shortintroduction to Industrial Design / Systematisk utforming av industri-produkter” by Eskild Tjalve (1976) has been widely used for in educationthroughout Scandinavia and has been recognized internationally both inEngineering design and Industrial design circles. Through learning to designwith it myself, teaching with it, and seeing design students struggle to apply itin their design practice, I have concluded that it has great power ofpersuasion. This is due to the clear and rational causal chains linking togethera comprehensive structure of thought. Nevertheless, the WDK school ofengineering design has shortcomings: In “Design Methodology” Andreassen(1991) states: “Among the important assumptions about the design processare the idea that it can be decomposed into sub-systems, the applicability ofvariational and combinational principles, and the idea of selection of the bestsolution based on appropriate criteria. Some steps can be expressed in termsof algorithms, while others do not have this property. The basis for the theoryof the design process is primarily the features which can be derived from thenature of mechanical systems, but a long series of other areas of science areinvolved. A weak element is the "human activity", which is reflected so poorlyin the procedural models that there is a danger of our forgetting to"demonstrate areas, where the human inherent ability are superior to that ofthe computer, not only to restore, but to boast the privilege and prestige ofhuman being" (Hongo 1985). It is normally overlooked that the designprocess is much more a learning process that an algorithm (Franke 1985),and that design methodology is only usable in the conscious part of theprocess (Hongo 1984)”.I interpret this citation from Andreassen as a call for attempts at broadeningthe theory of design to include, not only the technical system, but also of thehuman system and the activities both systems are involved in. For reasons thatwill become evident further on, I have chosen to use the theory of engineeringdesign as a reference and an idea base, rather than trying to intervene in it andmodify it. Roughly stated the reason is that interaction is incompatible with aproperty based, objective, causal description of a system. We must also knowsomething about experience and interpretation in order to create interaction.


A framework for product developmentIn the following sections, I will present some elements of the WDK theory ofengineering design that are important to this thesis, starting with the process ofcreating products.

The development of a product is described within a framework of theories onthe product development process which Andreassen & Hein (1986) call:general problem solving, product synthesis, product development and productplanning. Their relationship is illustrated in Figure 6. In the product synthesisprocess, the Theory of Technical Systems supplies a basis for describing thenature of the product, and may be used to prescribe a systematic designprocedure.

Figure 6: Four models for describing design activities (after Andreassen & Hein 1986)

INTRODUCTION 13

The theory of technical systemsCentral to the Theory of Technical Systems are Transformation Systems asdescribed by Hubka & Eder (1988). A transformation system is a model (seeFigure 7) of a system delimited by the need to achieve some user-determinedpurpose. A transformation system has the purpose of transforming something,called an operand, from an undesirable state into a better state. To achieve thetransformation, the operand goes through a transformation process, where it isinfluenced by effects produced by the human system, the technical system,and the parts of the environment that are active in the process. The sub-systems may also interact to produce effects and will react to feedback fromthe transformation process. Effects in the system will be material, energy orinformation, Hubka & Eder say.

Figure 7: The Transformation Process changes an Operand from an undesirable (O1) into adesirable state (O2) by introducing effects from a transformation system. (Hubka & Eder 1988)

Properties of the technical systemA transformation system may be described by characteristics that aremeasurable or definable, e.g. weight, height, strength, form or speed. Theeffects of the Transformation system are often regarded as the mostimportant properties because they contribute to the intended purpose of theTransformation system; it’s function. Hubka & Eder (1988) have created ataxonomy in which properties are roughly categorized into externalproperties and design properties.External properties are derived from the material of the technical system,properties that the producer, customer or user sees and judges:1. Functions and effects – e.g. working, regulating, or connecting2. Functionally determined properties – e.g. power, speed or size3. Operational properties – e.g. reliability, safety or life span4. Manufacturing properties – e.g. components or assembly5. Distribution properties – e.g. storing, packaging or transport6. Delivery and planning properties – e.g. production quantity7. Liquidation properties – e.g. recycling, waste disposal or dismantling8. Ergonomic properties – e.g. usability, safety or human adaptation9. Aesthetic properties – e.g. form, color, meaning or fashion10. Conformance properties – e.g. standards, liability, or legislation11. Economic properties – e.g. cost, price, or profit

Design properties are those properties of the technical system that theengineering designer has under direct control:1. General design properties – e.g. strength, stiffness, or noise emission2. Design characteristics – e.g. tech. principle or action conditions3. Elementary design properties


The elementary design properties are the means by which the designerrealizes all other properties in the technical system. They describe thetechnical system in great enough detail that it may be precisely defined andproduced They consist of the following:For higher levels of complexity of the technical system:• Structure

For the elementary technical system (e.g. mechanical components):• Form (shape)• Size (dimension)• Material• Surface (texture, quality)• Tolerances (dimensional, geometric)• Method of manufactureModels of the design objectAndreassen (1994) describes modeling as a language that gives a designer thepossibility of describing, visualizing or sculpting thought for the benefit ofothers.

Figure 8: Models share properties with the design object (after Andreassen 1994)

A model is an artifact that reproduces some of the properties of an object,because the model and the object have some common characteristics. Beyondthis, the model has some individual properties that are irrelevant to the object,and the object has some properties the model is not capable of replicating.There are a number of different types of model such as mathematical, verbal,sketched, physical and software based.

Figure 9: Modeling morphology for mechatronic product development (from Buur &Andreassen 1989)

INTRODUCTION 15

According to Buur & Andreassen (1989), four aspects are important whendiscussing the modeling activity:• The object - the product to be designed and, sometimes its surroundings,

or rather, the designers image of the product and its surroundings.• The modeled properties - the product properties to be reproduced by the

model.• The purpose of the model - is what the designer wants to do with the

model, typically any of the basic operations of engineering design. E.g.,design sketches are used to describe and generate new ideas.

• The user of the model - if the model is intended to be understood bypersons other than the designer him self, certain rules of communicationmust be followed.

They propose the morphology in Figure 9 as a reference when specifyingmodel types for mechatronic product development. They warn that itspractical value is mainly as an organizing structure and pedagogical tool, notas a means for building new models.

The domain theory of technical systemsThe theory of technical systems considers machines as systems in fourrespects:• As a system of processes of transformations, which correspond to the

technology of which the product is a part• As a system of functions which give the effects needed for the process• As a system of organs or functional units, which by their way of working

together create the necessary effects• As a system of machine parts that implement the organs and thus

constitute the machine or product.

Figure 10: Models of technical systems are organized in four domains, along two dimensions.On the horizontal axis from abstract to concrete descriptions of technical systems, on thevertical axis from simplicity to complexity. An actual product would be placed in the lower

right hand corner (Andreassen 1991) (Buur 1990).


These four points of view are regarded as domains in which the designerworks. They are used to organize those models of the design object that areemployed in the design process. The four domains are called; the domain ofprocesses, the domain of functions, the domain of organs and the domain ofcomponents (Andreassen 1991) (Figure 10). Andreassen proposes thefollowing causal relationships between the domains of machine systems:

Between Process and Function:"The technological principle for the transformation which is the purpose ofthe machine determines the functions which are to be implemented by themachine"

Between Function and Organ:"The functions are created by the organs within the machine. Organs at ahigh level can make it necessary to implement new transformations, which inturn lead to second order functions and organs, and so on."

Between Organ and Component:"The organs are materially implemented by machine parts. The necessaryrelationship between machine parts may lead to a requirement for low levelorgans such as joining, connecting and support organs, which in turn lead toa requirement for new machine parts."

For a number of years, this causality has been the basis for a prescription ofthe design process. But recently, in recognition of the erratic nature of designsynthesis, it has been reformulated as the concept of design degrees offreedom. The degrees of freedom are a description of an ideal designprocedure based on causal relationships between a specific set of technicalsystem properties. The domains are now primarily used to map designer’snavigational decisions and discuss the value and application of models.

Figure 11: Arrangement of the design degrees of freedom in a pyramidal pattern expresses thecausal relationships between the domains of technical systems (from Andreassen 1995).

INTRODUCTION 17

Design for qualityMikkel Mørup’s thesis (1993) on Design for Quality (DfQ) discussesproblems that are observed with integrating and applying total qualitymanagement. He argues that the design synthesis process is the origin ofproduct quality. By applying the theory of technical systems, Mørupidentifies product properties as carriers of quality. He calls these specificproperties, quality properties (Qpr) Quality may be understood as a vector of aproperty, specifically it’s subjective value to who ever is looking. Figure 12shows an example of such an evaluation of three properties of a seat beltbuckle.

Figure 12: Quality analysis of Volvo seat buckles, based on a design clinic with activeparticipation of users, and analysis of the results with QFD (from Mørup 1993).

Figure 13: "Quality is experienced by the customer when he interacts with the product. Theexperience is elicited by quality properties within the product." (from Mørup 1993 p91).

Mørup differentiates between two types of quality, big Q-quality and little q-quality. Q-quality refers to the users perception of quality, while q-qualityrefers to the quality perception of stakeholders in the product’s development,production and sales. Q-quality is defined: “Quality is the customer’sexperience (or perception) of how well the totality of quality properties of aproduct satisfies his stated or implied needs” (Mørup 1993 p91). He makes apoint of the subjective nature of quality by noting that “…the Q and qconcepts are not characteristics of the product alone, but can only beobserved through the stakeholders when their interactions with the product


take place (or are simulated in some way)” (Mørup 1993 p99). Customerresponses to the quality experience are affective and/or cognitive Mørup says.

To realize DfQ, Mørup identifies eight main elements, or preconditions:1. A company strategy to improve quality issues2. A good organizational structure that makes the realization of the strategy

possible3. Technology implementation linked to the business objectives, including

quality improvements4. A system for measuring quality performance and feeding the results back

to the strategic level5. A DfQ procedure onto which check points, tools and techniques and other

procedures may be mapped.6. Specific Quality tools and techniques such as quality function

deployment, robust design, failure mode analysis etc.7. Methods for generating solutions, both systematically and creatively that

help the individual designer.8. A means for creating a quality-mind-set for the design team members. A

quality-mind-set will guide designers in their daily work by a soundunderstanding of the needs, expectations and values of the customers.

Figure 14: The mindset model. People involved in decision making, synthesis and otheractivities in product development should be guided by a common quality point of view, and

have a general mind set about what quality and DfQ is all about (from Mørup 1993 p80).

Fundamental to DfQ is the general understanding of what quality is and howquality is designed into product and manufacturing processes. Mørup saysthat this understanding is inherent in the quality mindset. The quality mindsetis generic and can be of universal validity across companies. An importantcharacteristic of the quality mindset is that it is represented in the mind by theway concrete knowledge is assimilated and accepted, and put into a situationalcontext in the mind of the product developer. The quality mindset even hasan affective side, because it evolves in a process of consensus making in asocial context.

INTRODUCTION 19

Based on the theoretical elements presented here, the WDK-school comprisesan ordered structure of thought that enables us to explain how a product isdeveloped by following the causal relationships between an understanding ofthe general problem and specific component solutions in the proposedproduct. From the WDK perspective, all the designers activities are studied inrelationship to their impact on the product. However, this way ofunderstanding the product leaves out the fact that a product developmentprocess is also a social negotiation of values and a learning process betweendesigner, manufacturer and user. For an ordered discussion of interactiondesign these factors must also be brought to light.

1.4 A preliminary definition of styleThe fact that interaction is so essential, and all embracing, lead me tointroduce the concept of style at the end of chapter 1.1 because style is a wayof categorizing the totality that the user experiences. Chapter 4 is devoted to adetailed exploration of the term in an interaction design context, so I will onlygive a preliminary definition here, as an introduction.

The Latin word "stilus" and the Greek word "stylos" originate from the samesource as the word stimulus, "stick" and "sting". "The root of all these words issome word meaning an upright, expressing object. The word style originallygrew from this same tradition, meaning a way of signing things. Anotherderivative word "stile", meant a hand imprint characteristic of the artist orwriter, which can be traced in all their works as a unifying factor amongmany variations" it is also worth noting that the derivative terms "stimuli" or"stimulus" mean "...to produce vital energy or strength" (Ylimaula 1992 p15)The popular modern usage of the term style, is as the characteristic mode ofpresentation in any of the fine arts. According to Ylimaula, this understandingis approximately 400 years old. Dating from the time of Pope Gregory XIIIin 1582, but is still used nearly everywhere, and has only recently beenquestioned in light of Structuralism and Post-Modernism.

At first glance, it seems that there are few differences between the externalproduct properties of engineering design (chap. 1.3.) and the characteristicsof a style in art or architecture. Both are concerned with defining objects bytheir characteristics. However, product properties are based on the rational-objective assumption that we may find basic building blocks that can be builtup to totally define the object. Style characteristics, on the other hand, startwith a subjective experience of the totality, before picking out somecharacteristics that represent an understanding of the experience. I.e. anaesthetic-romantic understanding of the object. In design practice, thedifference may be substantiated by the many attempts at decomposing a styleand using its elements in a new context. In effect, using an objective approachwhen designing with subjective qualities. The results are most often of lowquality in the sense that they lack affective power and richness of meaning.This design procedure is called styling, and has negative connotations inindustrial design. Therefore, we can say that style characteristics and productproperties are different although both are related to the quality of a product.For a preliminary definition, I propose that:A style is the mode of presentation of an artwork or designed object, and maybe described by the characteristics of the mode of presentation.


1.5 Interaction design raises problems of philosophyand scientific traditionWriting a thesis about design for interaction necessitates choosing a basis inscience. Since design for interaction is situated in the intersection betweenmany traditional fields, and in the spaces left between them, no single fieldwill suffice. Through the years the writings of Fritjof Capra, Robert Pirsig anda paper by Erik Stolterman have provided inspiration, and have shown me away of approaching the multiple theories relating to interaction design:

With “The Turning Point - Science, Society and the Rising Culture” (1982),Fritjof Capra made me aware of how the rationalistic tradition of Cartesianthought and the mechanistic world view of Descartes and Newton splits all thatis into the inner world of our minds, and the outer world of things. Bydividing mind and body a border is created between our emotions and theenvironment of things that surrounds them. It seems to me that this borderruns straight through the act of using a product, effectively incapacitating ourability to handle this aspect of the product with the usual concepts of productdesign. It is the same split that has brought the disciplines of art andengineering far from each other. The vacant area has been filled byarchitecture and design, which have struggled to develop a foothold in theorybecause of the gap they that have to bridge. In theory, architecture and designhave developed a systematic approach based on the rationalistic, mechanisticvalues of science and technology, but in design practice many designers arereluctant to apply it because they feel a systematic, rational approach stiflescreativity and the close emotional rapport with the material that is necessary toproduce good design. In counter reaction, some have gone to the oppositeextreme, mystifying or emoting about the technology, material knowledgeand craftsmanship that is their basis for artistic expression in order to preservetheir right to a holistic understanding of the design material.

Erik Stolterman (1994) develops the idea of a simple dichotomy of the natureof design and design education in an article called “Guidelines andAesthetics: design learning strategies”, which builds on his doctoral thesis.His thinking is based on the conflict between two broad cultural streams ofthought the Enlightenment and Romantic traditions. He argues that theeducation of designers may be interpreted and understood based on somepresuppositions about the nature of design work that he calls “ the guidelinesapproach” and “the aesthetics approach”The guidelines approach is based on the idea that it is possible to formulateprescriptive guidelines that will bring the designer from the presentproblematic state to a future desirable state based on reasoning about thedesign problem.The aesthetics approach is based on the idea that a designer can only beguided through the design process by his own ideals and values. Therefore, itis necessary to train the designers’ sensitivity and teach him about valuejudgment through a history of exemplars.Stolterman recommends that design education elaborate on the differencesbetween these approaches, thereby deepening designers understanding insteadof indoctrinating them in only one direction. This way both approaches maybe employed for their strengths. The guidelines approach to describe how toact in specific situations, the aesthetic approach to select exemplars to guideand develop the sensitivity of the designer.For me, this was a pleasing recognition of a feeling that had developedthrough my own industrial design education and practice. I felt that field was

INTRODUCTION 21

split by old and fortified positions of faith rather than knowledge. Thepositions were difficult to understand for me as a newcomer, for I did not seeproblems, only different perspectives.

Two books by Robert Pirsig; “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance -an inquiry into values” (1974) and “Lila - an inquiry into morals” (1991)are popular, semi-fictional works in philosophy with a basis in linguistics:In “Zen...” Pirsig discusses the results of the subject/object split on oursociety. He shows how our thinking is colored by one or the other perspectiveon value, resulting in the concepts of classic and romantic thought. He thenintroduces the concept of quality as a more general metaphysical termdenoting the phenomena of value perception that makes definition of subjectsand objects possible.In “Lila”, Pirsig develops an idea of an alternative to the subject/objectdichotomy. In a proposal for a new metaphysics, he splits the world into staticand dynamic value patterns and argues that these are opposing forcesnecessary for achieving the dynamic balance of life. Static patterns of valuelock our perception of what is good and what is bad thereby assuringcontinuity and stability. Dynamic value is the destructive or spontaneousdevelopment that breaks patterns and develops new possibilities. For me, thesethoughts opened the way to appreciating phenomenology and the fields ofconsciousness research and semantics.

These three authors have been catalysts for my understanding of alternativeperspectives on the world of science. They have helped me understand thatthere may be ways of addressing the discordance between the world of scienceand the world of real, every day life in which interaction takes place,

Phenomenology provides a framework for describing interactionIn order to place phenomenology in relationship to other scientificperspectives, I will refer to an interview with Francisco Varela, a Chileanbiologist and Professor of cognitive science. Varela sketches a map of thefield of consciousness research using a political metaphor (Varela 1995): Hesays that on the outer left wing one finds neuroreductionists, According toe.g. Patricia Churchland the debate on consciousness will disappear once wehave learned enough about the way the nervous system works.Closer to the center we find Functionalists. They accept consciousness as ascientific problem, but want objective experimental methods to study it. In arough generalization, they think about consciousness as a function of thebrains state and activity. They do not deny the existence of consciousexperience, but they do not feel it is possible to build a science on thesubjective. Varela suggests Daniel Dennet's book “Consciousness Explained”as a representative of this camp. Then there is a group that declines to vote.E.g., Dualists or Mysterialsts like the American, Thomas Nagel. They do notdeny the existence of consciousness but believe it is unapproachable forscience on principle grounds. Finally, on the right side there are theexperience researchers - Phenomenologists, who believe that subjectiveexperience is something that cannot be reduced. More fundamental thanmatter, consciousness is everything. Of course there are also nuances withinthis fraction. Varela (with the book “Embodied Mind”) places himself incontrast to the American philosopher John Searl (with the book “Rediscoveryof the Mind”). Searl believes that experiences are directly observable, whileVarela wants to study methods of meditation as a way of blocking outconceptions about experience. He believes prejudices, ideas, thoughts, and


reactions, all the noise of the mind, must be blocked out before we can meetexperience face to face.

Figure 15: The difference between the objective and the phenomenological approach. (afterYlimaula 1992)

It is not possible to give a thorough discussion of phenomenology or thefields of existential philosophy or consciousness research within this format.Nor will I pretend to scholarship in these matters. For the purposes of thisthesis it will only be necessary to sketch a background, and use literature toidentify some points that will be of use in the coming discussions.

The phenomenological school of philosophy was primarily established byEdmund Husserl (1859-1938) at the very beginning of this century and hascontributed especially to philosophy, linguistics, aesthetics and psychology. Inhis main work “Logische Untersuchen” from 1900-1901, he develops theidea that consciousness is always directed towards an object, and that the worldis only accessible as it is presented to the consciousness. The task ofphenomenology is therefore to describe objects as they appear to us in acultural context and as parts of the real object world as it is represented in ourexperience. A consequence of this is that consciousness can never be emptywithout ceasing to exist. One can say that object and consciousness createeach other on the way from perception to action. (Johansen & Larsen 1994p313)

Martin Heidegger, the most prominent student of Husserl, undertook theproject of understanding Being from this perspective. According to Winograd& Flores (1986 p31), he argues that the separation of subject and objectdenies the more fundamental unity of being-in-the-world (Dasein in Figure15). He criticizes Kant’s “Refutation of Idealism” saying that the “scandalof philosophy” is not that no one succeeds, but that proofs of thesubject/object duality are attempted again and again. By drawing a distinctionI (the subject) am perceiving something else (the object), “I” have steppedback from the primacy of experience and understanding that operates withoutreflection. Heidegger rejects both the simple objective stance (the objectivephysical world is the primary reality) and the simple subjective stance (mythoughts and feelings are the primary reality), arguing in stead that it isimpossible for one to exist without the other. The interpreter and theinterpreted come into existence simultaneously. Existence is interpretation.Without either one the other ceases to exist.

INTRODUCTION 23

Maurice Merleu-Ponty (1908-1961) expands phenomenology byemphasizing the role of the body in the transition from experience tomeaning, before consciousness sets in, but after the development of meaninghas begun. (Johansen & Larsen 1994 p315)

The formation of consciousness as meaning and language is central tophenomenology. Since phenomenology claims to provide a basis foranalyzing and describing human experience and action, it has been developedwithin many humanistic sciences as well as for theories and the practice of artand design. E.g. Pierce definition of the sign in semiotics would today beclassified as belonging to phenomenology (Jørgensen1993 p26)

Heidegger - a basis for research in interaction designHeidegger’s style of reasoning is inaccessible in excerpt due to his usinglanguage and metaphor to speak of origins before the conception oflanguage. It is difficult to quote him correctly using short statements, becausethey will be imprecise and out of context. I have therefore made longerquotations of Heidegger, so the reader may follow his style of reasoningdirectly. As I am unqualified to synthesize and discuss his thoughts, I will usethe writings of four other scholars to this purpose, building my understandingon Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores book on computers and cognition,and on the Ph.D. dissertations of Martin Kusch and Anna-Majia Ylimaula fora perspective on phenomenology from the fields of art and architecture. (Iwill return to the last two in chapter 4)

One of Heidegger’s basic concepts is our perception of things. In an essayentitled “The Thing” (1971 pp165-171) he builds his argument on theconcept of nearness. We achieve nearness through things such as a jug filledwith wine. Not nearness in space and time but nearness as intimacy, as a directlink, or even closer than that, for even the conception of a link removesnearness.Discussing aspects of our understanding of a jug he says: “We become awareof the vessel’s holding nature when we fill the jug. The jug’s bottom and sidesobviously take on the task of holding. But not so fast! When we fill the jugwith wine, do we pour the wine into the sides and bottom? At most, we pourthe wine between the sides and bottom. Sides and bottom are to be sure whatis impermeable in the vessel. But what is impermeable is not yet what does theholding. When we fill the jug the pouring that fills it flows into the empty jug.The emptiness, the void, is what does the vessels holding. The empty space,this nothing of the jug is what the jug is as a holding vessel”Moving on to how this impacts on the designer and builder of the jug -thepotter- he continues: “Sides and bottom, of which the jug consists, and bywhich it stands, are not really what does the holding. But if the holding isdone by the jug’s void, then the potter who forms sides and bottom on hiswheel does not, strictly speaking, make the jug. He only shapes the clay. No-he shapes the void. For it, in it, and out of it, he forms the clay into the form.From start to finish the potter takes hold of the impalpable void and brings itforth as the container in the shape of a containing vessel. The jug’s voiddetermines all the handling in the process of making the vessel. The vessel’sthingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the voidthat it holds.”Finally he argues the difference between intimate comprehension of the a jugas a thing, and the scientific objectification of the jug:“And yet, is the jug really empty?


Physical science assures us that the jug is filled with air and with everythingthat goes to make up air’s mixture. We allowed ourselves to be misled by asemi-poetic way of looking at things when we pointed to the void of the jug inorder to define its acting as a container. But as soon as we agree to study theactual jug scientifically, in regard to its reality, the facts turn out differently.When we pour wine into the jug, the air that already fills the jug is simplydisplaced by a liquid. Considering scientifically, to fill a jug means toexchange one filling for another.These statements of physics are correct. By means of them, science representssomething real by which it is objectively controlled. But - is this reality thejug? No. Science always encounters only what it’s kind of representation hasadmitted beforehand as an object possible for science...Science makes thejug-thing into a non-entity in not permitting things to be the standard forwhat is real.”...“In what does the jug-character of the jug consist? We suddenly lost sight ofit - at the moment, in fact, when the illusion intruded itself that science couldreveal to us the reality of the jug. We represented the effective feature of thevessel, that which does its holding, the void, as a hollow filled with air.Conceived in terms of physical science, that is what the void really is; but itsnot the jug’s void. We did not let the jug’s void be it’s own void. We paid noheed to that in the vessel, which does the containing. We have given nothought to how the containing itself goes on. Accordingly, even what the jugcontains was bound to escape us. In the scientific view, the wine became aliquid, and liquidity in turn became one of the states of aggregation of matter,possible everywhere. We failed to give thought to what the jug holds and howit holds.”

What is, is defined by the potential for human concern and action.Within the field of computer systems design Winograd & Flores (1986 pp32-37) use Heidegger as a starting point for developing their ideas aboutcomputers and cognition. They list some points from phenomenologicalphilosophy that they deem relevant to the problem of Human ComputerInteraction:

1: “Our implicit beliefs and assumptions cannot be made explicit”In “Being and Time” Heidegger argues that there is no neutralviewpoint from which we can render the world and our own livesexhaustively explicit. And if this is seen as an imperfection, we havemisunderstood the art of understanding from the ground up.

2: "Practical understanding is more fundamental than detached theoreticalunderstanding"

Heidegger reverses traditional western philosophy, saying that we haveprimary access to the world through practical involvement with theready-to-hand; the world in which we are acting unreflectively. Hedoes not disregard detached reflection, but puts it in the context ofcognition as praxis - as concern-full acting in the world (see“thrownness”)

3: "We do not relate to things primarily through having representations ofthem"

In both the previous points, Heidegger rejects mental representations."If we focus on concernfull activity in stead of detachedcontemplation, the status of this representation is called into

INTRODUCTION 25

question"..."My ability to act comes from my familiarity withhammering not my knowledge of a hammer.” Winograd & Flores say.

4: "Meaning is fundamentally social and cannot be reduced to the meaning-giving activity of individual subjects"

The rationalistic view of cognition is centered on the individual. Bothlanguage and reason is studied as it applies to the individual.Heidegger argues the opposite position; that a person is not anindividual subject or ego, but a manifestation of Dasein within a spaceof possibilities, situated within a world and within a tradition. We musttake social activity as the ultimate foundation of intelligibility andeven existence.

Winograd & Flores elaborate on the subject of thrownness, stating that:

5: "You cannot avoid acting"At any moment, your actions effect the situation, even if you do notdo anything.

6: "You cannot step back and reflect on your actions"You are thrown into a course of action, because stopping to reflect isalso a course of action (see statement 5): you must trust your instinctsat the moment to deal with whatever comes up.

7: "The effects of actions cannot be predicted"You cannot count on careful rational planning to find steps that willachieve your goals. Because it is impossible to know exactly how youractions will effect other people

8: "You do not have a stable representation of the situation"In a post mortem analysis, you will observe that there were significantpatterns of objects, properties and relationships. But they were notapparent at the moment of taking place.

9: "Every representation is an interpretation"Even in a post mortem your analysis can not be objective, otherpeople will have other understandings.

10: "Language is action"Each time you speak you are creating the objects and properties byvirtue of making the utterance.

Two other concepts in Heidegger’s philosophy are also presented asimportant to the study of computer systems design:

11: "Readiness-to-hand and Present-at-hand

12: "Breakdown"Objects and properties are an integral part of concernfull action and thepotential for its breaking down. Referring to statement 3, when hammering weare no more aware of the hammer than of the tendons in our arm. They arepart of the readiness-to-hand of hammering. It is only when the act breaksdown (e.g. missed the nail!) That the hammer becomes present-at-hand, andthe object of our attention.


1.6 The purpose and goals of this thesisIn this chapter I have described how the development of new interfacetechnology and the migration of information and communication technologyfrom general purpose desktop computers onto our body and into task specificeveryday products creates a new challenge for designers. With increasingcomputing power distributed to a multitude of products that arecommunicating with each other and offering the user complex newfunctionality, the designer influences our style of living and thinking to agreater degree than with simple, isolated products. Designers therefore need tomaster a new art of designing for interaction quality. They need to understandhow the sum of individual experiences they create, establishes a style ofinteraction between man and machine, and ultimately contribute to a style ofhuman activity.

The primary research questions of this thesis therefore become:1: How do designers influence interaction quality?2: How do designers influence a style of interaction in a social context?

Being a thesis in product design engineering a relationship to an establishedbasis of theory and practice is desired. I have chosen to relate this thesis to theWDK school of engineering design, which has a prominent position inScandinavian, engineering- and industrial design and is internationallyrecognized. It provides a consistent and comprehensive theory of engineeringdesign that is useful in both design education and practice. It prescribes asystematic design process based on the assumption that a design problem isgeneralizable and reducible to basic elements. The basis for its theory of thedesign process is primarily the features which can be derived from the natureof mechanical systems, but a series of other areas of science are involved.Interaction.However, the relationship between humans, machines and subjectiveexperiences is poorly developed in WDK theory because it applies theobjective rationality of natural sciences. By differentiating between thesubjective and the objective, the fundamental nature of interaction as the waywe experience our surroundings can not be accounted for. I believe that aphenomenological approach better describes interaction. Consequently, ratherthan try to add a theory of interaction to a theory of technical systems that isbuilt on fundamentally incompatible assumptions, I will use engineeringdesign theory as an inspiration and a reference for developing acomplementary theory of interaction. Thereby I will be free to adopt theoperational strong points of WDK theory and avoid being thwarted by itsweaknesses.

Since Interaction design is a new and evolving field there are very fewcomprehensive theoretical structures describing interaction as a design object.Most research is done in relationship to some practical application, so that thedifferent theoretical approaches remain isolated and focused on specific areasof knowledge. I do not have any ambitions about describing the nature ofinteraction. It would require integrating all the theoretical and practicalknowledge that is available at a level of detailing that could be synthesizedinto a prescription of good interaction design practice. What I see is a needfor a common basis from which to compare and discuss interaction designprocedures and interaction as a design object.

INTRODUCTION 27

The major goal of this thesis will be to develop a theoretical basis fordiscussions about the constituent elements of interaction, their qualities andthe resulting style of the totality. Such a theoretical basis should also support adiscussion and comparison of interaction design procedures since designprocesses, methods and techniques constitute the road towards realizing theright elements of interaction.

By increasing awareness and sensitivity to interaction issues, designers andusers may benefit in a number of ways:• Increased consciousness of interaction styles may reduce the tendency to

apply new interface technology only for the sake of its functionality. Thedesigner will be motivated to ask what interaction experiences this newinterface realizes for the user that were not present in earlier solutions andto identify and evaluate the tradeoffs.

• Awareness of different interaction styles will make it possible to point outnew directions for interaction design in relationship to general designtrends and their underlying philosophies.

• Awareness of different interaction phenomena will make it possible todescribe personal styles of interaction or of interaction design

• Knowledge about what influences interaction experiences will be of use asan element in corporate identity programs.

It is my hope that better knowledge about interaction design will result in ahigher degree of user satisfaction and motivation by lowering the threshold ofacceptance, by increasing the will to learn and understand, and by creating ageneral feeling of competence and ability in stead of technology induced fearor distance.

The hypotheses of this thesis:The hypotheses of this thesis are divided into two groups, reflecting theprimary research questions formulated in the beginning of this section.

First: To address the question of how designers influence interaction quality,we need to understand interaction itself and the relationship between elementsof interaction and interaction quality. By applying a phenomenologicalunderstanding of interaction I position interaction outside WDK’s technicalsystems theory, in such a way that it can expand engineering design’stheoretical domain.

1: Interaction is the process of making sense of experiences as actiontakes place, therefore interaction quality is integral and fundamental tointeraction, and not a vector of interpretation like quality is in relationship toproduct properties.2: Interaction is a layer of meaning that comes into existence as a resultof affective response to, and interpretation of, the effects and transformationsof the transformation system. It is not inherent in or derivable from theproperties and effects of the transformation system. Interaction is the processof meaning giving that continually establishes, reconstitutes and redefines thetransformation system.3: The designers understanding of interaction phenomena may berepresented by models in the same ways that products are. It is only theinterpretation of the models that differ. Models of interaction do not replicateelements of the interactions themselves but describe the interactions secondhand or create the conditions for experiencing a similar interaction directly.


Second, a basis for discussing interaction and interaction design must beestablished. We must offer the designer a possibility for organizing his or herunderstanding of interaction in relationship to an operational theory ofinteraction, and an opportunity to influence styles of interaction must beestablished. Because the designer has direct control over the core product andonly exerts some influence on the total product2, it is necessary to establishhow interaction phenomena may be explicated and turned into objects ofdesign:

4: Models of interaction may be organized by whether they reflectindividual or collective interpretations of interaction, and according to howthey reflect a way of thinking5: It should be possible to describe and select methods and workingprocedures based on a theory that maps models of interaction phenomena.6: An operational concept of interaction style functions at two levelssimultaneously: A: Style is the fundamental sound thinking that guides thedesigner and user in evaluation. B: A style may be described by identifyingcharacteristics of artifacts and actions, as exemplars of the underlying soundthinking. This means that style is apparent in products and actions, andaccessible through models because they represent values and ways of thinkingabout interaction. And it means that the designers style of thinking may beidentified through these models.

2 The total product consists of:The core product (core benefit or purpose)The tangible product (packaging, brand name, features, quality, style, etc)The augmented product (installation, delivery, and credit, warranty, after-sales service, etc)(Kotler 1980) In this thesis I will use the term “Product” to denote the Tangible productand Core product, since this is the usual scope of product designers

INTRODUCTION 29

1.7 The structure of the thesis

Interacting with a book is an information rich process. You see the layout andgraphics, feel the weight of the volume and the quality of the paper; you finda spot in the text and read a bit to sample the quality of language, all at thesame time. This process may take only a second, but already you have animpression of the work before you. Next comes the need for an overview,which is described here:

Chapter 1: IntroductionThis chapter presents the research problem. The scope is defined in relation toproduct type in the fields of human computer interaction and engineeringdesign. The concept of interaction is presented in contrast to user interfacesand a theoretical starting point is established in engineering design. Theconcept of style is introduced.The question of choosing a scientific perspective is addressed since interactiondesign falls between conventional categories. A phenomenological perspectiveis chosen for its ability to explain interaction as a separate and primary designobject.Finally, research questions, hypothesis and goals are explained before thechapter concludes with this overview of the structure and contents of thethesis.

Chapter 2: MethodThis chapter describes the general research method, the material that theresearch builds on and comments on specific empirical methods that havebeen applied. It concludes with a presentation of suitable verificationmethods.

Chapter 3: In search of interaction qualityDesigning for interaction quality, requires knowledge about which elementsof a product influence specific interaction experiences, and how one candesign with them.In the first sections of this chapter, literature reviews and empirical studiesexplore the relationship between product properties and aesthetic designelements in the visual arts and dance. It is concluded that exploration of theexpressive potential of the basic kinesthetic design elements of time andmovement is a necessary approach when designing for interaction. It is foundthat users think in terms of interaction gestalts, and create metaphors andnaïve causalities as an aid to understanding the machine. Designers can traintheir own sensitivity and study this way of thinking by systematic kinestheticexperimentation and user centered evaluation techniques.In the last sections, I review an attempt at a complete model of interaction as abasis for describing the interaction design process. Finally, I propose anexpansion of the transformation system model to encompass interaction.

Chapter 4: Concepts of styleHow does the designer influence interaction style? In this chapter, somegeneral directions of style theory are traced through the visual arts, theperforming arts, archeology, before a common basis for current style theoryis found in linguistics. The concept of style is found too diverse to applydirectly to interaction. In stead, four questions about style provide theconditions for developing an understanding of interaction style. A proposal


for a complete model of interaction based on the theory of communicativeaction is found to provide a basis for understanding the designers style ofthinking. The idea of dividing style into levels with different criteria ofprecision is explored empirically. It provides a general understanding ofstyles of thinking, but proves to be too general for a practical interaction styleanalysis were contextual criteria must be used.Finally, the problem of styling is addressed. If style is made an explicit part ofthe design procedure, there is a risk that the application of style elementsresults in lower quality and affective power in the solution. I explore thepossibility and risks of interaction styling and conclude that the designercannot avoid interaction styling if he is to be aware of the style he is workingin, and that it is the users in a social context that uphold meaning or demodé astyle.

Chapter 5: A proposal for a Theory of Discursive Interaction DesignIn this chapter, findings from chapters, three and four are synthesized into aproposal for a Theory of Discursive Interaction Design. It is formulated as aDiscourse Map that describes ways of developing an understanding ofinteraction. The Discourse Map is inspired by the Domain Theory ofTechnical Systems in Engineering Design. It is based on mapping models thatdescribe interaction by both designers and users. The models are analyzed forthe discourses they contribute to. This makes it possible to follow thedesigners navigational decisions during the design process. The chapterexplains my arguments for four interaction domains and the discursiverelationship between the domains. Finally, it presents examples of modelswithin each domain.

Chapter 6: Application of the Theory of Discursive Interaction DesignThis chapter uses the Discourse Map as a tool for analyzing styles of thinking,interaction design strategies and the practical navigational decisions ofdesigners. I invite the reader to judge the acceptability of the Theory ofDiscursive Interaction Design in practice as I first present an analysis of thestyle studies from chapter 4.3 to 4.5 and then go into greater detail,describing two cases of empathic, user centered design. In a discussion at theend of the chapter I present a general analysis of the cases. These points leadto arguments for the acceptability of the Theory of Discursive Interaction: Idescribe the major obstacles I encountered when applying the Discourse Map,and argue for the benefits of using it.

Chapter 7: ConclusionThis chapter summarizes the results of the thesis, discusses its goals, resultsand contributions, and suggests further work along this line of research.

INTRODUCTION 31

2.0 Method

This chapter describes the general research method, the material that theresearch builds on and comments on specific empirical methods that havebeen applied. It concludes with a presentation of suitable verificationmethods.

METHOD 35

2.1 General research methodApplied research in design science is directed towards the conversion andextension of knowledge for use in particular circumstances. It synthesizes andoperationalizes theory from many different sources to explicate design-specific trans-diciplinary problem complexes.

The research is carried out between theory and practiceAll research within design science is a combination of addressing a certainbasis of perceived problems, and working with a basis of existing theories.Jørgensen (1992) calls these the problem-based approach, and the theorybased approach, as illustrated in Figure 16. The problem base of this thesis isdescribed in chapters 1.1 and 1.2. The development of the problem, and aproposed solution takes place in an interchange between theoreticalinvestigations and empirical explorations.

Figure 16: Paradigms for research work (from Jørgensen 1992)


The interchange is a process of operationalization that describes theoreticalconcepts, relationships and models in terms that fall into observable categoriesbased on the identification or measurement of real phenomena (Nielsen1996) (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Operationalizing is the process by which theoretical concepts may be described interms of observable phenomena (after Nielsen 1996)

The research is carried out between multiple theoriesNot only am I shifting between practice and theory, but because I amcombining knowledge from different fields (art, architecture, industrial-, andengineering-design, HCI, semiotics, style theory, sociology, and engineering),which in themselves are cross-disciplinary, my theoretical base will be cross-disciplinary. The term “perspective” will be used throughout this thesis todenote a theoretical point of view, that is based in some specific field of study,and its underlying scientific ideas and philosophy.

The goal of my work is to develop complementary theories to engineeringdesign, not to contribute within engineering design itself. By freeing myselffrom the theoretical formalisms and scientific basis of engineering design Ican make wide sweeps of literature, searching for ways of thinking andapplying theories that may be applicable to my research problem. Myresearch method characteristically reflects the use of a wide variety ofliterature in multiple fields of study. The process is summarized in Table 2:The first column refers to the chapters of the thesis, the third to the researchrelationship between theory and practical studies, which are described incolumns four and two respectively.

METHOD 37

Table 2: The relationship between practice research and theory in the chapters of this thesis.(modified after Swanborn 1984)

Chapter Practice Research Theoretical basis1 Problem is observed,

but still vague. Lackinginformation about thesituation

Eng. design theory HCItheory Industrial designPhenomenology

3 Refinement ofobservations:Empirical studies basedin new theory

Diagnostic research:Description andsearching forexplanations inliterature

HCI theoryAesthetic theoryEng. design theory

4 Refinement ofobservations:Empirical studies basedin new theory

Diagnostic research:Description andsearching forexplanations inliterature

Style theory in:art and architecture,dance, archeology,linguisticsHCI/sociologySemiotics

5 The situation is clearer,but how to intervene?

Model making andtheory developmentaimed at possibleintervention

Eng. design theorySociologyPhenomenology

6 A model and theory istried out

Evaluative research totest and evaluateintervention

Industrial designInterface designEng. design

7 Further work:A model or method isadapted

Further work:Evaluative research totest and evaluateacceptance

The thesis is based on axiomatic definitions of interaction.Interaction has different definitions in most of the fields of HCI and design Ihave studied. These definitions are accepted for their operational validity orlogical consistency within a specific field. Within the limits set by a field, thedefinition seems intuitively reasonable and has proven itself in practice.

The proposed definition and theory of interaction in this thesis is alsoaxiomatic. It is based on a synthesis of attempts at descriptions of interactionphenomena in multiple fields. In chapter 3, empirical studies are used toexplore its operational validity. Problems are uncovered and literature is usedto search for other ways of thinking that remedy or solidify weak points. Inchapter 4, a search of literature is used to both develop and critiqueknowledge about interaction. This process continues until new literatureprovides ideas that are applicable to my emerging structure of thought.The result of this process is an operational theory in chapter 5 that is, finally,evaluated and discussed in relationship to two case studies in chapter 6.


2.2 MaterialThe objects of this study are the users and designers experiences andunderstanding of interaction: The users life-world with its objects of use, itssituations, interpretations and social contexts is the design object that thedesigner needs to understand. The designer works in another life-world thatalso contains a product development project within a context. The designer islimited to directly manipulating the product, the major element of the objectof use, when attempting to influence the design object.In the same way, we can see the researchers work as studying an object thatcontains both the user and the designer. Of course there are also researchersstudying how research is practiced. This research meta-object falls outside thescope of this thesis.

Figure 18: The User, Designer and Researcher have different perspectives of man machineinteraction.

The User, Designer and Researcher have their own perspectives, motivationsand intentions while studying their respective objects. In addition, the objectsof use, design and research afford different opportunities for concern andaction. All three actors develop their own mental models of the phenomenathey are experiencing based on these preconditions. Therefor the researcherand the designer’s knowledge of how the user experiences and interpretsinteraction can at best be descriptions by the user, or personal experiences ofsimulated interactions.

Appendix C – List of information sources presents a list of the sources I havebuilt on, or learned from, apart from the referred literature. In the course ofthe work I have arranged and participated in four industrial activities ininteraction design or testing. I have tutored nine final year student projects,and taken part in eight conferences, invited lectures, courses, etc, with variousdegrees of involvement.In most cases, the material for this thesis has been extracted from theseactivities, rather than the activities being designed as formal experiments orstudies to isolate and verify any particular hypothesis. The development ofmy ideas has been a continual learning process, where I have tried to followmy knowledge interests as directly as possible, through the opportunities forpractical work that have presented themselves.

METHOD 39

2.3 Empirical methodsFor a test or experiment to fulfill the requirements of an objective method, itmust be possible to repeat the method and get the same results independentlyof the person administering the method. The goal is that the method may beused on all corresponding events, and that the results thereby will begeneralizable and contribute to widening mankind’s common knowledge ofthis field of study.Are the aims of objectivity and generalizability achievable on indeed relevantto a study of interaction?

Phenomenological analysisIn a semantic analysis of products in a context of use. Susann Vihma (1995pp79-88) discusses the analysis of the subjective quality of the iconic sign.She proposes that repetitiveness and control might be of secondaryimportance. When someone perceives and interprets a product that isperceivable to others too, the object of perception does not afford itself onlyto one perceiving personality. Therefore some features of the precept can becompared, but the actual state-of-knowing itself is not being compared to theother persons state-of-knowing. A common impression is formed eventhough only the individual has direct access to the experience, becausedifferent people can have the same standards or scales of impressions. This isdue to the fact that inner standards are formed by comparison andinterpretation in a situation in which precepts are dynamically interactive withthe environment. Interpretation is formed in Husserl’s "life-world": "The life-world even includes relations other than those to other persons. It iscontinually "on hand" for me and I myself am a member of it. Moreover, thisworld is there for me not only as a world of mere things, but also with thesame immediacy as a world of values, a world of goods, a practical world"(Husserliana III, p59, translated in Føllesdal 1990).

Therefore, for a phenomenological analysis, we should use variation as amethod for collecting as many different perspectives on a phenomenon aspossible. We should study:• Our own experiences• Other peoples experiences• Deviations, exceptions or imagined variations• The same phenomenon in different culturesThen we compare the different examples of experiences and try to discoverwhat their common denominators are. What is common or relatively constantis inter-subjective and assumed to capture the experiential essence of thephenomenon. It is to be expected that even this will change gradually overtime and in different cultures. The quality of a phenomenological analysis,therefore, depends very much on the analyst. A sensitivity similar to theaesthetic sensibility of the artist is necessary to be able to express the qualitiesof ones own experiences in a form that may be conveyed to others.

Action researchIn action research the researcher submerges him or her self in the material asan active participant. It is a demanding form of inquiry because the researchertakes on the role of an active participant, while at the same time arranging thepremises for the action and keeping a conscious eye on what is going on.There are a number of tradeoffs in action research that differ from traditionalobjective methods.


• Action research sacrifices an objective perspective for a greater richness ofinformation. By being submerged in the action it is possible for theresearcher to observe phenomena and causal relationships that theparticipants are not aware of or do not consider important. The researcherexperiences first hand the same phenomena that the participants report,,and therefore has greater likelihood of understanding tacit knowledge,unspoken rules etc.

• Action research makes the researcher a part in any argument. Due to anemotional engagement with the material, unbiased observation becomesdifficult.

• Action research allows the researcher to influence the process that is beingobserved, both positively and negatively. If one wants to try outsomething new, it is possible for the researcher to assure that participantsstay on track and remember or learn what is necessary for the successfulcompletion of, e.g. a new method. On the negative side, participation bythe researcher will color the participants reactions and may change anatural course of events. In effect, the researcher may force the results toshow the expected.

• Action research makes an experiment a singular occurrence. The classicalexperimental goals of repeatability and generalization may not beachieved. In stead one must base observations on their being acceptableand reasonable.

I will briefly comment on my role in action research studies. Most of theempirical studies I have done are in the form of project work directly withindustry or student projects initiated in cooperation with industry. For anoverview of the empirical material see Appendix C – List of informationsources starting on page 295.

In the work directly for industry I have acted as a consultant, contributing toplaning the work together with the project team, introducing ideas andmethods as an instructor, and participating in design workshops and usabilitytests as a member of the team. I have analyzed usability test protocols, writtenreports and contributed to making presentation material such as posters,models and paper prototypes. Since most of the empirical studies were of anexploratory nature, I did not feel that a research diary was relevant because Idid not know what to write until the work was completed and the knowledgewas digested. In these cases experiences and observations are noted in thereports. The only exception is the Danfoss Smart Window workshop where Iwrote a research diary every evening and arranged an evaluation session at theend of the workshop.

In the high level student projects I have acted as personal tutor for the studentguiding the development of the project and discussing experiences, andtactical dispositions as the work proceeded. In some cases I have acted as aparticipant in arranging and contributing to workshops and usability tests.The students have been asked to write their observations and evaluations ofthe design process in their project reports.

In the MMS courses at lower level, I have acted as a lecturer and tutor forclasses of 15 to 20 students. The students have carried out my assignmentsindividually or in groups of tree to five people. In these cases I have not beenable to immerse myself in action research. My observations are mainly basedon the tutoring sessions, on the students results and oral presentations.

METHOD 41

ExperimentsIn chapter 3 I report on two experiments: The “Kø-fri” experiment in whichI explore the applicability of Osgood’s semantic differential to the analysis ofinteraction experiences, and explore the designers thinking about interactionprinciples. And, the “Progression bar” experiment in which I explore therelationship between the aesthetic elements of time and movement and theusers interpretation of product behavior.I will not detail the methods in these experiments here, they are betterexplained in their context in chapter 3. But some general remarks arenecessary. In both cases ten users participated in the study and six variationswere made to a limited set of variables. These numbers were chosen for timeand efficiency. They are not enough for sound statistical results with themethods that were applied, but they are sufficient to indicate the direction ofthe results. The goal of the experiments was not to make a detailed study ofthe phenomena that they measure, but rather to explore the applicability ofthis kind of experiment to the problem of developing the designersunderstanding of basic interaction design elements.

Usability testsAppendix D describes the usability lab that I built at our department. Whenestablishing the lab, practical experience was collected from discussions at theusability labs of SINTEF Unimed in Norway and the Institute for EngineeringDesign at Denmark’s Technical University, Danfoss, Komunedata, and Bang& Olufsen in Denmark. At these places I learned that usability testing may beapplied to a wider range of products than the computer applications describedin the literature. It became a goal with our lab to explore the practical limits ofusability testing, rather than conduct formal mainstream tests of computerapplications. Therefore we attempted to apply the technique to very simpleinteraction such as with at Tomra reverse vending machine and children’stricycles as well as complex computer interfaces. We experimented with a widevariety of test material from fully functional prototypes via advanced wizardof Oz mockups and touch screen computer simulations, to simple paperprototypes. Breaking the conventions of usability testing gave some newinsights into the nature of interaction. I got an idea of the limits of the user’screation of mental models and empathy with the interaction process.Like in the formal experiments my major insights came from studying thevalidity and sensibility of the test, not the results of the test itself.


2.4 Verification of design theoryVerification of theory and methods according to the tradition of naturalscience can only be achieved by successful application in practice. Buur(1989) argues that direct verification is unrealistic for design theory, due tothe multitude of factors influencing the design process, and the stochasticnature of design. He therefore suggests two alternative ways of verifyingdesign theory; logical verification, and verification by acceptance.

1 - Logical verification:• Consistency: there are no internal conflicts between individual elements in

the theory.• Completeness: that all relevant phenomena observed previously, can be

explained or rejected by the theory• Coherence: well established and successful methods are in agreement with

the theory• Cases and specific design problems can be explained by means of the

theoryThis approach has the drawback that confirmation of a theory will be byanalysis, while actual design is a synthesis process, meaning that observationsmay be imprecise.

2 - Verification by acceptance:• Statements of the theory are acceptable to experiences designers.• Models and methods derived from the theory are acceptable to

experiences designers.This approach has the weakness that acceptance is influenced by pedagogicaland rhetorical variables that are hard to control.

I have applied both these methods of verification in this thesis. Logicalverification by consistency, completeness, coherency and explanatory powerare all present in the text.Final verification by acceptance can only be done when the cost/benefitrelationship has been established in practice. Two case descriptions in chapter6 establish a basis for verification by acceptance. The cases and theories havebeen presented to a few professionals and researchers, but no formalverification has taken place.

METHOD 43

3.0 In search of interaction quality

Designing for interaction quality, requires knowledge about which elementsof a product influence specific interaction experiences, and how one candesign with them.In the first sections of this chapter, literature reviews and empirical studiesexplore the relationship between product properties and aesthetic designelements in the visual arts and dance. It is concluded that exploration of theexpressive potential of the basic kinesthetic design elements of time andmovement are a necessary approach when designing for interaction. It isfound that users think in terms of interaction gestalts, and create metaphorsand naïve causalities as an aid to understanding the machine. Designers cantrain their own sensitivity and study this way of thinking by systematickinesthetic experimentation and user centered evaluation techniques.In the last sections, I review an attempt at a complete model of interaction as abasis for describing the interaction design process. Also, I propose anexpansion of the transformation system model to encompass interaction.

IN SEARCH OF INTERACTION QUALITY 47

3.1 Looking for the building blocks of interaction qualityTo address the first research question, of how designers influence interactionquality, interaction itself and the relationship between elements that contributeto interaction and quality must be understood. By applying aphenomenological understanding to interaction but building on engineeringdesign’s theory of technical systems, properties and quality this chapter setsout to discover the relationship between interaction and the designers buildingblocks. I begin by pointing out some problems of understanding interactionqualities with the conventional tools of engineering design based on empiricalstudies. Then I search widely in literature for other perspectives that describethe observed phenomena better. I develop a nuanced understanding ofinteraction quality by shifting between refining the problem, and applyingnew insights. Both literature studies and empirical studies will be used for bothpurposes.

Usability metrics prove insufficient as a basis forinteraction designMørup (1993 pp. 89-113) states that quality in use is a part of the customer’squalitative perception of the product. Q-quality is the customer’s experienceor perception of how the totality of quality properties of a product satisfiesimplied or stated needs. The experience is elicited by quality properties (Qpr)within the product and all four domains of technical systems may contributeto a quality experience of the product. Applying this understanding directlyto interaction quality, we usability tested a series of reverse vending machines3

from Tomra™ (Figure 19). By measuring the frequency and outcome ofpredetermined events, we could determine the success of tasks like, placingbottles into the machine with the bottom first, or positioning the bar code oncans up and into the machine. However, a number of more subtle andcomplex user-reactions became apparent during the tests. These were difficultto account for by connecting them directly to quality properties, to a specificorgan, function or process in the machine. Neither did we learn much fromthe users, because they were unable to describe rational motives for theiractions within the conventional formats of a thinking-aloud usability tests orretrospective interviews; “… the single most valuable usability engineeringmethod.” according to Nielsen (1993). For example, we observed usersreacting to perceptions of the machines attitude and helpfulness. The samemachine was perceived as both “intelligent”, “cool” and “obstinate”.

3 Reverse vending machines collect food and beverage containers for recycling.


Figure 19: In usability tests we found that the Tomra T14 prototype was perceived as"intelligent", "cool" or "obstinate"

Another example: For safety reasons, developers at Tomra™ placed the twolarge tires of the feed mechanism far into a can machine were the user wouldnot come near them. During usability tests it was observed that users reactedwith surprise, and quickly drew back their hand from the machine, when themechanism took hold of the can and drew it in. Some users became angryand aggressive when the machine reversed the can out again due toacceptance faults. Later, when designing another machine, the same tires wereplaced in full view of the user, just behind the front panel. Sensors thatstopped the machine, a weak motor and soft rubber in the wheels assured thatit was harmless for users to be caught in the mechanism. This solution wasexpected to appear more intimidating to users, but usability tests showed theopposite to be the case. Users acted trusting and at ease with the mechanism.No surprise reactions were observed when the wheels pulled the bottle out ofthe users hands or rejected and returned them. In retrospect, it seemed thereason might be the obvious affordances displayed by the later machine. Theuser could see the wheels, and expect a reaction when the bottle was pressed inbetween them.A third example: Tomra™ wanted to design a machine that reduced thecycling time for users to put in bottles, a figure of approximately 1,5 seconds,or 40 bottles per minute. It was found that, although very few users werequick enough to feed bottles faster than the machine could accept them, usersstill commented that the machine could be faster. Was this due to the usershearing or seeing the sorting mechanism after the bottle was accepted? Noconclusive evidence was found, because it was difficult to identify whatspecific quality properties were involved.


The limitations of engineering propertiesIn the Tomra case we were trying to arrive at design decisions by looking forcausal relationships between user behavior and design properties, withoutsucceeding. The theory of technical properties is based on the assumption thatdesign may be seen as the process by which all the properties of theTransformation system are defined (chap. 1.3). What makes design socomplex is that only a handful of elementary design properties actuallydefine the product, all the others (external properties) are derived fromcombinations of the basic design properties. Even the external properties arein a changing relationship to each other. For example, Figure 20 illustrates theproportional importance of three groups of external design properties indifferent product types.

Figure 20: The proportional importance of properties varies with the fields of design (fromHubka & Eder 1988)

Buur (1990 p62) writes that an approach based on describing propertiesbegins to lose relevance when applied to electronics. In electronic componentdesign the properties of mechanical systems are only relevant for lowcomplexity electronics like single resistors, capacitors, etc. "For componentslike semiconductors and IC´s, which perform complex functions, the Theory ofBasic Design Properties does not sufficiently explain the manipulatabledesign components”...“design can only be accomplished using ahierarchical, systems-oriented approach aided by computer design systems."Searching for basic design properties in the software of mechatronic systems,Buur finds few footholds. High level external properties such as userfriendliness, efficiency or reliability are mentioned in the literature, but theseare a result of multiple influences. He mentions formalisms and modularity aspossible approaches used in design specification, but arrives at noconclusions. "The major issue here is really the missing visibility of computerprograms. It requires a high level of abstract thinking to understand thefunction of software systems before they are actually implemented. Thisapplies to program users, customers and design managers alike, and often tothe designer himself too." Fast prototyping of software allows for developing amutual understanding, facilitating the discussion of design specifications at anearly stage, Buur says.


The Tomra™ machines had very little interface graphics and extremelysimple screen interaction; in addition, we observed few users basing theiractions on the screen, so user reactions had to come from other sources. Sincethe machines are mechatronic in stead of purely electronic, some of thefeedback was in the form of machine sounds and mechanical actions insidethe machine. What we observed was the same problem that Buur saw incomputers and electronics. The electronics were regulating the functions ofthe machines mechanical actions, so that they did more than the user expectedby looking at the interface. Consequently, it seemed that users were findinginformation in unwanted and unplanned feedback and creating uninformedexplanations on their own. Like in pure IT products, we needed to find a wayaround the missing visibility of the machines function. Buur pointed out thatthe solution might be to exchange a high level of abstract thinking for anunderstanding based on real experiences. This approach seems similar to theaesthetic approach in art and industrial design. To further the search for thebuilding blocks of interaction design I therefore investigated the basicelements of aesthetics.Quality is more than a subjective critique of productpropertiesIn introductory courses to aesthetics, sensitivity to visual experience is trainedby doing practical exploratory exercises with aesthetic design elements. Thisapproach was made popular through the curriculum of the Bauhaus, and hassince become a standard in design education. (Banham 1994)

Basic aesthetic elements4 are things like:• Spot• Line• Area• Shape• Compositional relationships• Visual forces• Proportion• Rhythm• Tool marks• Color• Texture

4 Note that I am intentionally using the term elements in stead of properties todifferentiate the properties described in engineering design from the aesthetic elementsdescribed in art and industrial design. What are characterized with aesthetic elements arenot the measurable or observable effects, but the experiential phenomena that theelements create in a discourse with the viewer.


Figure 21: Use of a linear dynamic based on the contradictory visual forces between thehorizontal and vertical axis and on proportion creating a sense of space. (from deSausmarez

1990)

deSausmarez (1990) warns that the principles of basic aesthetic design shouldbe looked at "as an attitude of mind, not a method”, and that it should be"not an enquiry about marks and structures which appear out of the materialsused, but also an enquiry about the sources and terms of personal expressionand reaction to the world around us". Basic aesthetic design is; "...empathetically not an end in itself but a means of making the individual moreacutely aware of the expressive resources at his command; fostering aninquisitiveness about phenomena ... in the external world or the interior worldof visions, personal reactions and preferences."The basic elements of aesthetics are superficially the same as productproperties; a line, a texture, a color etc. may all be described by quantitativemeans and attributed to the product. However, the difference is fundamentalto the designer’s way of thinking. Properties are defined as elementarybuilding blocks of the product, while aesthetic elements are the means ofexpressing elementary experiences (Figure 21 exemplifies this). When anaesthetic element is used, it is a means of representing something that is notdirectly observable as a physical object namely the users experience. In thepractice of aesthetic design, the designer chooses among combinations ofproduct properties in order to create an appropriate experience.

According to Stolterman (1991), there is a difference between an aestheticdiscussion and a critique. If we say that a picture is beautiful, this is a critique,but if we discuss why it is so this it an aesthetic discussion.5 Developing thesensitivity of quality measurement and grading techniques which is only amatter of critiquing the material. The approach adopted in aesthetic designfocuses on training the designer’s aesthetic sensitivity through aesthetic 5 Following this line of reasoning, the quality approach in engineering design (Mørup1993), critiques individual product properties and then puts them together to form aquality profile of the total product (e.g. using Quality Function Deployment).


discussions. It is assumed that the designer is better suited for synthesizingand inferring results from complex, incomplete and imprecise data, than amethod is. Pye (1978 pp96-102) writes that for a discussion of aesthetic issuesto take place the parties involved must refer to some common, primaryexperience. For example, it is impossible to convey an experience of beautyto someone who is not sensitive to it in the first place, just as it is impossible toexplain the experience of a toothache to someone who has never had one.Therefore, it is only possible to discuss aesthetics once some commonexperiential basis has been found. In agreement with deSausmarez and Pye, Iconclude that it is necessary to model the objects that generate an aestheticexperience. A model will provide a common experiencial basis and facilitate adiscussion about the way the basic design elements work together to create theeffects that are experienced.

To summarize: while engineering design sees product properties asfundamental building blocks of objects, the assumption implicit in theaesthetic approach is the phenomenological one that a persons perception ofan object is fundamental. Aesthetic elements are the means by whichdesigners may represent an experience and attempt to recreate it through themedium of a product. Aesthetic design uses modeling as a means of creatinga common basis for discussion and training of the designers sensitivity toaesthetic phenomena.

Qualitative analysis of movement in danceDeveloping a discussion around personal experience of basic aestheticelements is well developed in the visual arts, but does not consider dynamicsto the degree that is needed for interaction design. Assuming that theexploration of aesthetic design elements is the best way of generating adiscussion about interaction experiences, and training aesthetic sensitivity;How do we apply it to interaction design? For an analysis of dynamics I willgo to the performing arts. Which one would be fruitful to study? Theatre,opera, musicals and film are all more or less dominated by a verbal narrative,while music is only dynamic in the dimension of sound. Performance artseems too diverse and individual to be good material for a systematic study.In this section I will therefore, in agreement with Svanes (1997), look at the artof dancing. Dance isolates dynamics more than any of the other performingarts does, and has a long tradition and formal structure that lends itself well toanalysis. To analyze style in dance, Hammergren (1991) reviews theories ofdance and theatre and proposes the following set of aesthetic elements:

1. Dancer: vocabulary of movement, quality of movement, use of space,number of dancers, costume, mask, wig

2. Dance composition: focus or direction of attention, representation ofreality, compositional forms

3. Visual environment: Decorations, lighting, props, stage4. Auditive elements: music, sound, speech, song

For interaction design, we can instantly exclude elements 3 and 4 becausethey are similar to the visual and auditive objects and environment in manmachine interaction. Groups 1 and 2 seem more interesting, although theyhave a few similarities with design theories:


1. The visual arts are used to thinking of a vocabulary of form, similarly tothe concept used in dance. A vocabulary of movement in interactiondesign could be the interactive possibilities of different interface behaviorsand interface technologies. Analysis of the dancers quality of movementand use of space, have no direct parallels. I will return to this point ingreater detail as it seems central to dynamic aesthetics. The number ofdancers, costume, wig etc. are equivalent to the quantitative structure andchoice and detailing of components and total form in a product (Tjalve,1976). However, since dancers are both a formal and a dynamic elementin a dance performance, quantitative structure is also a factor in dynamicaesthetics which does not have its counterpart in product design.

2. Focus, direction of attention and compositional forms are all part of thebasic dynamics of visual form (e.g. Figure 21 on page 51) However, indance there is also a dynamic aspect of composition that is not depictedstatically, but which actually moves. Finally, representation of reality indance composition has its counterparts in cognitive models, objectstructures and metaphor in HCI (e.g. Togazini 1993), and productsemantics and identity in industrial design. There does not seem to muchnew here.

Of the points discussed above, quality of movement seems to be the only onethat does not have a counterpart in some branch of design. Hammergrenexemplifies movement quality with a well-known movement from the classicalvocabulary of ballet, the plié (bending the knees) as in Figure 22. Thebending may be done, by one dancer, with an elastic resistance, like if thehead was fixed to the ceiling with a rubber band, and another dancer may doit like a lowering of the level of the whole body, like if there was no resistance.

Figure 22: The modern dancer Murray Louis instructs the classically schooled Rudolf Nurejev.Notice Nurejev's straight torso resulting in a tension in the body, while Louis seems a lot more

relaxed. (Photo by Jack Vartoogian from Hammergren 1991)

Rudolph Laban has made a thorough systematization of movement qualitywith the concept of effort and the Laban Movement Analysis (LMA). “Effortis the common denominator for the various strivings of the body and mindwhich become observable in the child’s activity. Sporadic efforts aredeveloped naturally through playing and are later refined through thediscipline of dancing. Dance is an activity in which the spontaneous growthand blossoming of efforts are preserved up to adult age … and through the


whole of life” (Laban 1975 p18) LMA has also been applied to the analysisand improvement of industrial labor, and even to office work and the analysisof body language in meetings. (Laban & Lawrence 1974)

The LMA distinguishes between four basic movement components that arerepresented in a graphic notation (Figure 23). The notation is used foranalysis and choreography, or writing a script of movement qualities for otherapplications. According to Laban the most basic movement qualities are themanagement of weight and the flow of movement along two dimensions,respectively:

Weight - strong or lightThe weight of the body may have a strong, forceful quality when it works withreference to gravity. This is represented by a downward line in the notation,Movement can also have a lazy, weightless, airborne quality. Referring to thevictory over or freedom from gravity. This is represented by an upward line.

Flow - free or boundMovement can flow freely through the body without stop. Laban describesfree flow as an abstraction in which it is difficult to stop the movementsuddenly. This is represented by a horizontal line to the left. A bound flowgives movement a restrained, controlled and limited quality. Movementshould be able to stop at any moment and be held still. This is represented bya horizontal line to the right.

These four qualities of movement are augmented by two more, the use ofspace to accomplish a movement:

Space - indirect or directThe body may move in space in a direct line or more flexibly, e.g. wave likeor curved or so that different parts of the body move in different directions.These two qualities of movement are displayed parallel to the lines forlight/fine touch and bound flow because they contain similar qualitativecharacteristics.

The diagonal line is the basic sign for effort, to which the six other lines areconnected.

Finally, an effort may be executed with different qualities of timing andrhythm:

Time - sustained or quickA movement can be executed with restraint, stretched out, in legato or quickly,staccato, sharply. Either the whole body moves in one of these manners, ordifferent body parts use different temporal qualities simultaneously. Time isrelated to the movement qualities of flow, and are therefore parallel to them.A free flow is similar to a sustained movement, while a bound movement oftenhas sudden or quick changes of tempo.


Light/Fine Touch Flexible/Indirect

Direct

Bound

Sudden/Quick

Firm/Strong

T T

FF

W

S

W

Sustained

Free

Figure 23: Laban’s Effort-Graph; This diagram functions as a notation for quality of movementin dance. Each of the four dimensions of Space (S), Time(T), Weight(W) and Flow(F) has

opposite expressions. The sign for effort, a short slanting stroke stands in the center

Laban equates the simple elements of motion with an alphabet that may becompounded into phrases. Unlike language, the meaning, or sense of thephrases of movement can be understood as expressions of definite actionmoods, to use his terminology. ”The feeling of simple action moods arestrengthened by the repetition of a simple effort. More complicated actionmoods result from combined sequences or from different efforts” (Laban 1975p45) He suggests that the student of dance or work movement, be introducedto a basic repertoire of movements by training awareness of body, weight,time, space, flow of weight in space and time, adaptation to partners, using thelimbs as instruments, awareness of simple effort actions and rhythms. Later,more advanced themes are shape of movement, combining effort actions,combining space orientations, using combinations of body parts, coordinatinggroup action of dancers, and finally expressing qualities or moods ofmovement. “The performance of any kind of shapes or patterns must becomeso automated that they are conceived in the mind and felt in the body as awhole phrase of movement and not as composite lines” (Laban 1975 p35)Essentially Rudolf Laban prescribes a learning strategy that is quite similar tothe ideas developed in the Bauhaus for the visual arts and design. So it seemsreasonable to include movement and time as dynamic aesthetic elements.


3.2 Three studies of interaction qualityAssuming that the experiences of time and movement are new, dynamic, basicaesthetic elements for product designers, how do users experience them inproducts? How can product designers explore their expressive potential? And,further more, how does a designer develop the material for an aestheticdiscussion? In this section two empirical studies and a literature review areused to investigate these questions.

The progression bar study – users interpret machinebehavior based on experiencesAs an attempt to isolate the interaction experience an interaction sequence wascreated, in which there were only a few, common, and general, visual impulses.Six graphically equal copies of a progression indicator from a WIMP style(Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer) computer interface were made in MacromediaDirector 4.0 The visual elements were a dialog window masking out a bluebar that could be animated to move past a hole in the mask. I created sixdifferent behaviors by isolating and varying the timing of the movement: Asmooth behavior, an accelerating behavior, a behavior with sudden stops andstarts, a slow, incremental behavior, a behavior with a short and a long pauseand a behavior that went slower and slower until it interrupted just beforecompletion.

Figure 24: A sample screen: The progression bar in action, the users pointer hovers over thecancel button

The graphics were made to resemble real WIMP dialog boxes, without theidentity of any specific operating system. The simulations were run on aMacintosh computer. Ten people, all staff, faculty or students at theDepartment of Product Design Engineering participated in the study. Theyactivated the dialog boxes one at a time, and described their experiences,impressions and thoughts to the test facilitator. The subjects comments wereanalyzed for the experiences they described and the metaphorical


understandings they developed about the behaviors. The following temporalbehaviors were implemented:

Progression Bar 1Even movement at 24 frames per secondover a total of 58 frames. Total duration 2.4seconds.There were no special characteristics withthis bar, and no previous simulations tocompare it with. The subjects had tocompare with their previous personalexperiences. One thought it was slow, somewere neutral and some thought it was smoothand quick. There seemed to be nocharacteristic that created any need forcreating causal relationships or metaphoricexplanations. A user would typically say;"That was comfortable - because it was quitefast"

Progression Bar 2Even movement as above but incorporatingalternating 2 second and 1 second pauses. Atotal of four pauses. Total duration 8.4secondsThe pauses led to differing interpretationsbased on different experiences of the sameproperties: Some felt the stops as signs thatthe machine was doing heavy calculations,and was unable to update the screen. This ledto negative attitudes. The machine wasdemanding attention by the dynamics of theaction, but at the same time not giving any

information about what was going on. Some users detected a rhythm in thepauses and accepted them as a natural part of the machines working, therebycalming down. Another user comment sums it up: " Wow! - here we goagain! - Seems like it is doing small tasks - first I thought it was stopping -that the program had locked up. Don't know what is happening when it stops- starting a new sub task?"

Progression Bar 3Even progression as above but with a 2 secondpause after 35 frames and then progression to50 frames (only eight left!) followed by a 20second pause where progression stopped andthe computer screen froze up; the Quit buttonstopped working and it was impossible to exitthe program without rebooting. After waiting20 seconds the program completed anyregistered mouse clicks during the pause andthen completed in a normal fashion. Totalduration 24.4 seconds


This is understood as a problem by all the users after only 2 or 3 seconds.They feel that they have an emotional investment in its finishing, and reactwith irritation at the delay. Many are visibly hovering over the cancel button,but feel they have to see it through, maybe for the sake of the test. On aBrowser they say they would have hit "Stop" after just a few seconds, while ifthe application was doing something important they would cross their fingersand go for coffee with a sinking feeling in their stomachs.A user says: " Uh-hu:... The OH-NO! feeling; after one second I fear the worst- hold my breath and cross my fingers that it will go well."

Progression Bar 4Accelerating progression speed over the last40 frames. Using Directors 4.0´s In-Between-Special command it was not possible toquantify the acceleration, only to choose anumber of frames that looked good. Totalduration 2.4 secondsEverybody liked this one. Smoothness givescontinual feed-back on progress.Acceleration towards the end makes thecomputers task seem quicker or simpler eventhough the duration of the sequence is thesame as in #1. One user commented that; "

What in the world! (Surprised) First I thought that it went really slow butthen... - quite comfortable - quickly finished. My personal time scale tolerates2 seconds in the beginning better than in the end."

Progression Bar 5Retarding progression speed by reducing thetempo or frame rate setting produced theeffect of a progressively slower and roughermovement of the bar. 12 frames at 10 f.p.s.then 5 frames at 8 f.p.s. then 5 frames at 6f.p.s. then 10 frames at 4 f.p.s. then the last16 frames at 2 f.p.s. and finally a full secondpause before displaying the message"Execution interrupted". Total Duration 14.1secondsSome subjects felt that the slowing downcarried a momentum that would lead to the

application freezing up. An especially eloquent user said the opposite"....started quickly, the speed decreased - experiencing suspense - TheHitchcock feeling, hands gripping the table, using mind power to bring ithome. - The momentum from the speed in the beginning makes me feel like itwill make it."


Progression Bar 6Even progress over 58 frames at a frame rateof 4 f.p.s. for a slow but steady and granularmovement. An 8 second pause beforedisplaying the start menu again. Totalduration 22.5 seconds.A grindingly slow progression is madebelievable by the fact that it is incrementaland not totally smooth. The subjects guessthat this may be due to the machine workingsuccessfully at innumerable, small tasks.A user comments that it:" Goes slow butevenly - small steps seem like the program is

achieving something. If it had been completely even I would not havebelieved it was true, that it was just something being shown"

Users make interpretations based on categorization of movement qualityThis study demonstrated that it was possible to generate material for anaesthetic discussion by modeling interface behaviors and allowing subjects totry them. However, I found that the expressive potential of temporalinteraction is difficult to anticipate by only looking at the properties thatdefine the behavior within the product. This study only attempts to isolate thetime factor. Still we see a rich variety of interpretations by the users.For instance, one behavior was an even movement lasting 2,4 seconds.Another movement of the same duration began slowly, and then acceleratedover the last half of the scale. Reactions to the first varied greatly, dependingon prior experience. But all the users commented that the one withacceleration towards the end made the computers task seem quicker orsimpler even though the duration of the sequence was the same as the firstone. The reason may be that the first behavior was the first in the test, and itwas homogeneous in the sense that it did not change expression during itsmovement. The users were forced to compare it to previous experiences,which of course were diverse. The acceleration on the other hand, was thefourth behavior, so users had an idea of what to expect. The behaviorestablished a pace, and then changed it straight away by accelerating. Materialfor direct comparison and interpretation was close at hand, so the subjectsreactions became more similar.The same observations with the other behaviors support this finding. In twosimulations the performance was slow: The first had an even movement withfour alternating 2 second and 1 second pauses, for a total duration of 8.4seconds. The second an even progress at a slow but steady and incrementalmovement, and an 8 second pause before displaying the start menu again.Total duration was 22.5 seconds. Some saw the stops as signs that the machinewas doing heavy calculations, and was unable to update the screen, which ledto negative attitudes, others accepted them, and did not react. The secondsimulation was even slower, but seemed less irritating. Although this exampleis weaker than the first, again we see that the behavior that is varied under wayresults in stronger affective reactions with a clear direction, this time towardsirritation.I made two simulations that were really slow and indicative of a possible fault:A progressively slower and rougher movement of the bar and then, finally, afull second pause before displaying the message "Execution interrupted".Total Duration 14.1 seconds. Users react to this with suspense and a feeling ofmomentum.


The second had a 2-second pause halfway, then a 20-second freeze-up of themachine just before the end. After completing any registered mouse clicks theprogression continued normally to the finish. Total duration 24.4 seconds.This is understood as a problem by all the users after only two or threeseconds of the 20-second freeze. They felt they had an emotional investmentin its finishing, and react with irritation at the delay.In this case the decelerating behavior creates empathy, while the behavior withlengthy stops is considered as successions of similar states by the users. Itcreates irritation, but not as much interpretation after the initial interpretation.

The results indicate that the subjects connect a lot of meaning to theprogression and interconnections of small bits of feedback. The way theyinterpret the behaviors is based on prior experiences. Expectations areformulated as soon as the subject identifies some type or category ofmovement quality in the progression bar. The subjects expectations thenshape their empathic understanding of the machines processes. The subjectscreate metaphors to help understanding or make anthropomorphic analogies.E.g. "The computer is encountering a problem" or "The computer is workingheavily" This is the same effect that Laban identifies as the phrases andcommunicated moods of dance. Laban’s idea of categorizing movementquality may therefore be relevant to interaction design as well. Laban pointedout that it is the combination of phrases, metaphors and analogies that creatediversity and richness of interpretation. In man machine interaction, thesubject uses interpretation in a search for rational causalities in stead ofaccepting the mood that is created as an end in it self. By studying theexpressions the subjects used, the movement qualities of speed (relative toexperience and expectations; not absolute), breaks and continuity, rhythm,momentum, respite, and dynamic energy were identified. All of these may beverified by comparison to Laban’s categories. By studying the subjects use ofmetaphor, it was found that they think of the machine as working; quickly,surely, heavily, encountering problems, locking or freezing. The first four areanthropomorphic metaphors, the two last are analogies to simple naturalphenomena and mechanisms.

Starting from the perspective of making the Director files, it was difficult forthe designer to predict the expressive potential of the temporal interactions. Itwould therefore be interesting to explore further, what kinds of aestheticeffects designers should be aware of concerning the users perception of timeand movement. And to try to train a sensitivity for time and movement relatedeffects. Laban’s categorization is developed into a complex taxonomy ofmovement qualities that may provide a starting point by comparison withinteraction phenomena. However it is beyond the scope of this thesis to followthis line of research further.What remains unexplained after the progression bar study is why the subjectscreated metaphorical explanations for their experiences, and how dynamicaesthetic thinking differs from static, visual aesthetic thinking. This will be myline of inquiry.


Kinesthetic thinking - users think of actions asinteraction gestaltsAt the Department of Informatics at The Norwegian University ofTechnology and Science (NTNU), Dag Svanes has studied users and designerskinesthetic6 thinking about interaction in search of an alternative way ofdesigning software (Svanes 1997). His work substantiates my observations andprovides a theoretical and empirical foundation that explains why users createmetaphorical explanations for their experiences, and of how dynamicaesthetic thinking differs from static, visual aesthetic thinking.Inspired by the theories of art expounded by Kandinsky (1994) and byMichottes (1963) experiments on the perception of causality, Svanesdeveloped 36 Finite State Automata (FSA’s) consisting of squares on thecomputer screen. The squares were either black or white. The user could clickon them, resulting in an immediate response. The two user actions detectedwere "mouse button press" and "mouse button release"Svanes describes in detail one response to a three-square FSA:The FSA is described in technical system terms as consisting of four states andsix transitions, each state represented graphically and each transition initiatedby a "mouse button press". The squares are numbered from left to right. TheFSA starts with the color combination white-black-white. The color of squarethree can be changed by clicking on it. This square has "toggle behavior"When square three is black, it is possible to swap color between the two othersquares by clicking on the one being white.

Figure 25: Graphic comparison of the state diagram with the users mental model (Svanes 1997)

Analyzing statements like the one below showed that the users constructedtheir own mental models of the FSA's behavior:"...OK, you have to begin with the one to the right to be able to doanything...then you can move that one (square 1)... and turn the one to theright on and off..."Svanes writes: "We see here that she sees the FSA as consisting of a switch inposition 3 which can be turned on and off, and a white square that can bemoved between position 1 and 2 when ever the switch is "on". The graphical 6 Kinesthetics is to be understood as dynamic aesthetic phenomena as opposed to thestatic aesthetics that are continually accessible in the same state, for instance a painting ora chair.


representations in Figure 25 above compare the state diagram to the usersmental model. Svanes continues, inspired by Lackoff and Johnson's theory ofmetaphor, to catalog the metaphors used by his subjects when describinginteractive behavior. He identifies 10 implicit metaphors in his material andnotes how they are often used in combinations. Test subjects often comparedFSA's saying that they were alike but had some parts that differed. The spatialmetaphors are cataloged in Table 3 below:

Table 3: The spatial metaphors subjects employed to describe FSA behaviors (from Svanes1997)

User moves FSA/square movesPhysical space(Cartesian 2D)

"I go to the left one andclick"

"It moves to the right"

State space(Like a maze)

"I go back" "It goes back to being allwhite"

Time as space(Linear time)

"I do it the opposite way" "It goes on being white"

“All subjects showed an ability to see artifacts with respect to other artifacts inone way or another" ... "The possibility of a purely linguistic comparison canbe ruled out, at least for some of the subjects, because in some cases theydescribed aspects of a previous artifact for the first time as differences fromone at hand. A purely linguistic comparison would require that all aspects ofthe previous artifact had already been stated positively. This leads to theassumption that what is being compared are the actual artifacts as they areexperienced in interaction. A possible term for the artifacts as perceivedreality could be Interaction Gestalts" (Svanes 1997). He proposes the term"...Kinesthetic Thinking to signify direct cognitive operations on tactile-kinesthetic sense experiences, i.e. on Interaction Gestalts". These ideas aresupported by Lackoff (1987), Johnson (1987), and Laban (1975). Based onLaban’s theories about the process of dance composition, Svanes states that:"In the context of interaction design, Kinesthetic Thinking involves not only"a sensibility for movement", but also a sensibility for orchestrated responsesto movement, i.e. interaction".

Svanes work indicates that movement is experienced in physical space, in astate-space or in time-as-space. These movements could be attributed to eitherthe machine or the user. He finds that they only exist as objects through theusers experience of the interaction like the phenomenological perspectives ofHeidegger and Merleu-Ponty (chap.1.6). When designing for interaction thebasic elements of movement may be called interaction gestalts, and ourthinking of them may be called kinesthetic thinking. He finds that kinestheticthinking seems independent of time and state. An interaction gestalt is soprimary that a movement is thought of independently of it’s being in space,time or state. Meaningful wholes may be mentally compared, superimposedetc. as if they were images. Based on Svanes work it seems reasonable todifferentiate the design of static, visual artifacts from the design of interactionswith dynamic artifacts. He has supplied an operational answer to the questionof why the subjects created metaphorical explanations for their experiences,and how dynamic aesthetic thinking differs from static, visual aestheticthinking. He has suggested that interaction is a new dimension of design thatis orthogonal to visual aesthetics. But he has not addressed the problem ofhow designers may generate a kinesthetic discussion, to understand theexpressive power of interaction gestalts.


The “Kø-fri” study – designers can measure kinestheticexperiencesSvanes studies indicate that kinesthetic thinking about interaction gestalts maybe useful. But how can the designer explore the expressive nuances ofinteraction gestalts? How do we measure the qualitative experiences they giverise to? The following empirical study explores this question:

Inspired by Svanes' experiments, I applied the concept of interaction gestaltsto practical design in student Kjersti Stølan's 8th term design project for thecompany MicroDesign a.s.

Figure 26: A design proposal for "Kø-fri brikken" was animated in a touch-screen simulation

The product is a small electronic device for automatic payment on toll roads,called "Kø-fri brikken". Due to the need for two different modes of paymentor toll zones the user needs to check or change mode while driving, if thisdoes not happen automatically. The selected electronic and visual designspecifies two light emitting diodes (LED) and one button. The LEDs are darkin idle mode. When activated the LED corresponding to the current mode, redor green, lights up, it is then possible for the user to change modes. Thecontext of driving a car up to a toll station imposes the need for quick andcertain operation of the interface. The user should not be left with a feeling ofnot knowing the state of the product after having operated it as this distractsattention from driving.Searching for a way of measuring interaction experiences I found thatLaban’s movement analysis uses adjectives with opposite expressions similarto the semantic differential method developed by Osgood (1969). InOsgood’s words: “We wish to find a kind of measurable activity or behaviorof sign-using organisms which is maximally dependent upon and sensitive tomeaningful states, and minimally dependent upon other variables” (Osgoodet.al 1978). “The semantic differential is essentially a combination ofcontrolled association and scaling procedures. We provide a subject with aset of bipolar adjectival scales against which to do it, his only task being toindicate, for each item (pairing of a concept with a scale), the direction of hisassociation and its intensity on a seven step scale. The crux of the method ofcourse, lies in selecting the sample of descriptive polar terms. Ideally, thesample should be as representative as possible of all the ways in whichmeaningful judgements can vary, and yet be small enough in size to beefficient in practice. In other words, from the myriad linguistic and non-linguistic behaviors mediated by symbolic processes, we select a small butcarefully devised sample which we shall try to demonstrate is chiefly indicativeof the ways that meanings vary, and largely insensitive to other sources ofvariation.” (Osgood et.al 1978).


Inspired by this method, I hoped to determine the best behavior of theproduct by evaluating different transitions between the modes using semanticdifferentials. Four simulations of different transition behaviors weredeveloped in Macromedia Director 4.0 based on the rendering in Figure26. The variables were the LED’s timing and flash frequency. Metaphorically,as interaction gestalts, the student and I thought of these variations in terms oflights coming and displacing the old. Either flashing as an initial warning ofcoming on, or the old light flashing as a sign of it’s going out

The simplicity of the interaction with the device made it possible to explorethe practical limits of perceiving interaction gestalts. To achieve this we firstcreated two behaviors that we felt were principally different interactiongestalts:A - Pressing the button toggles between red and green:• Press button while in idle - the current state LED lights up• Press button while LED is lit - the state changes instantly and the new LED

lights up.• With no button pressed - time out to idle after 3,6 seconds

B - Pressing the button and holding it in until timeout makes the lightschange.• Press button - the current state LED lights up• No button pressed - time out to idle after 3,6 seconds• When current/old LED is lit - Hold button in through all 3,6 seconds, or

press and hold the button again at the end of the period and the statechanges. The other LED lights up - Hold button in again, wait, and thestate changes - etc. etc.

Then, two variations were made on the second behavior principle:B2 - Hold the button in for 1.1 seconds, the old LED flashes four times, thenthe new LED lights up.• Press button - the current state LED lights up• No button pressed - time out to idle after 3,6 seconds• When LED is lit - Hold button in for 1.1 seconds - the old LED flashes

four times, then the state changes and the new LED lights up.

B3 - Hold button in for 1.1 seconds - the new LED flashes four times whilethe old one glows steadily, then the state changes and the new LED glowssteadily while the old one goes dark.• Press button - the current state LED lights up• No button pressed - time out to idle after 3,6 seconds• When LED is lit - Hold button in for 1.1 seconds - the new LED flashes

four times while the old one glows steadily, then the state changes and thenew LED glows steadily while the old one goes dark.

To test for sensitivity these two minor variations were repeated, beingpresented as a fifth B22 and sixth B32 design proposal to the subjects. If theusers imagined differences influenced the results as much as the realdifferences, we could say that the lower level of sensitivity had been exceeded.

The simulations were tested on a 21-inch touch-screen monitor in approx. 3:1scale and on an 11-inch laptop screen with touch pad in approx. 1:1 scale.Ten users participated in the study. The test proceeded in the followingmanner: The user was informed of the nature and functionality of the product


and simulations. He or she was then asked to explore the simulations one at atime and encouraged to verbalize initial impressions, experiences andthoughts. The test leader was seated next to the user to help initiateverbalization. The session was videotaped for later analysis and the test leadertook notes of the users comments. Concurrently the user was asked to fill in aquestionnaire consisting of six semantic differential tests comprised of 23semantic differentials on seven point scales. The user was encouraged toexplore and compare the simulations again while working on thequestionnaire.

score: 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 good bad2 active passive3 beautiful ugly4 comfortable uncomfortable5 strong weak6 relaxed tense7 tasteful tasteless8 quick slow9 valuable worthless

10 peaceful wild11 happy sad12 safe unsafe13 reliable unreliable14 friendly unfriendly15 sweet sour16 hard soft17 cumbersome simple18 masculine feminine19 harmonious disharmonic20 sharp blunt21 cheap expensive22 calm uneasy23 positive negative

Figure 27: The semantic differential scales translated from Norwegian


It was found that users rated behaviors A & B as the most different. BehaviorsB and B2 were perceptibly different, while deviations between the two copiesB2/B22 and B3/B32 were as small as the deviations between behaviors B2 andB3, indicating that the limit of sensitivity was exceeded.

I compared standard deviations of the responses to each individual adjectivepair and found that the results varied between 2,0 and 0,3. This indicates thatsome of the adjective pairs were better suited for measuring this interactionthan others. Sensitivity may be increased by both tailoring the adjectives andemploying interaction gestalts formulated as sentences. For example verbalresponses indicate that users thought of A, B and B2 as conceptually different,because the flashing of B2 was such a big affective difference from the staticwaiting experience of B. We might call these three, different interactiongestalts: A - "switching", B - "holding-waiting", and B2 - "pressing-flashing".

The results confirm that we can measure and explore the expressive nuancesof interaction gestalts using the semantic differential method as a way ofexplicating the users kinesthetic experiences. Applying verbal protocolanalysis and tailored adjectives will probably increase the output of themethod.

2 , 5

3 , 0

3 , 5

4 , 0

4 , 5

5 , 0

5 , 5

semantic diff. nr.

sc

ale

re

fere

nc

e

nr.

Average of B2, B3, B2.2, B3.2 3 , 7 3 , 2 3 , 3 3 , 9 4 , 0 4 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 3 4 , 0 4 , 1 3 , 9 3 , 7 3 , 2 3 , 7 3 , 9 4 , 6 3 , 7 4 , 3 3 , 6 4 , 1 4 , 1 3 , 8 3 , 9

version B 3 , 4 3 , 8 3 , 5 3 , 3 4 , 2 3 , 3 3 , 2 4 , 2 3 , 8 3 , 4 3 , 8 3 , 1 3 , 3 3 , 8 3 , 6 4 , 0 4 , 4 3 , 9 3 , 6 3 , 7 4 , 1 3 , 3 3 , 8

version A 2 , 3 2 , 6 3 , 4 2 , 9 3 , 2 3 , 3 3 , 6 2 , 0 3 , 3 4 , 2 3 , 5 2 , 9 3 , 1 3 , 6 3 , 5 3 , 9 5 , 4 4 , 2 3 , 8 3 , 1 4 , 3 3 , 3 3 , 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3

Figure 28: The three behaviors the users distinguished. The X-axis refers to position number of an adjective pair, the Y-axis to the average score of the tenrespondents. A score of 4,0 is neutral.

2 , 5

3 , 0

3 , 5

4 , 0

4 , 5

5 , 0

5 , 5

semantic diff. nr

sc

ale

re

fere

nc

e

nr.

version B3.2 3 , 9 3 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 1 3 , 7 4 , 6 3 , 3 4 , 4 4 , 3 4 , 7 3 , 8 4 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 2 4 , 2 4 , 4 3 , 3 4 , 2 2 , 9 4 , 2 4 , 2 3 , 6 3 , 9

version B2.2 4 , 0 3 , 5 3 , 3 4 , 1 4 , 1 4 , 0 3 , 2 4 , 4 4 , 2 4 , 0 4 , 1 3 , 7 3 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 1 4 , 5 4 , 0 4 , 1 3 , 6 4 , 4 4 , 1 3 , 9 3 , 8

version B3 3 , 2 2 , 9 3 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 0 3 , 7 3 , 0 4 , 3 3 , 7 3 , 7 3 , 7 3 , 1 2 , 6 3 , 2 3 , 5 4 , 8 4 , 2 4 , 4 3 , 1 3 , 9 4 , 0 3 , 9 3 , 7

version B2 3 , 6 3 , 1 3 , 6 4 , 3 4 , 0 4 , 3 3 , 2 4 , 0 3 , 9 4 , 1 4 , 1 3 , 6 3 , 2 3 , 7 3 , 7 4 , 5 3 , 4 4 , 3 4 , 6 4 , 0 4 , 2 3 , 7 4 , 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3

Figure 29: The four behaviors the users found difficult to distinguish


3.3 A complete model of interaction as a design objectNow that a more neuanced understanding of interaction has been established,it is time to evaluate an attempt at a complete model of interaction as a designobject. The model is an attempt at integrating interaction design intoengineering design theory.In his Ph.D. thesis, Tom Hede Markussen (1995) reviews all the major schoolsof thought about interaction in HCI. He finds that none of them contains acomplete description of interaction. They all take only one perspectivetowards a limited field of application. Due to the complex nature ofinteraction, he argues that it is necessary to use multiple perspectives. Hejudges the different schools of thought for their applicability to interactiondesign of mechatronic products. Finding that all but the computer specificheuristics are more or less directly applicable to mechatronics, he develops acomprehensive map of interaction in which all the schools of thought have aplace. The map, he argues, may be understood as a model of interaction. Bystructuring the knowledge in it in accordance with the engineering designtheory of degrees of design freedom, it also becomes an operational tool fordesigners because it explains the elements of interaction in relationship to thedesign process.

I believe Hede Markussen’s approach falsely assumes that interaction may bebroken down into qualities and quality properties like a technical system.Consequently, he looses the ability to integrate a holistic empathic designapproach. I also judge his application of the theory of design degrees offreedom to be overly ambitious. I will present some of his ideas and detail mycritique of them in this section.

Six dimensions describe the whole design object of interactionTo make a complete model of interaction, Hede Markussen organizesinteraction knowledge according to six dimensions. Five of them areconcurrent; the sixth is the temporal and dynamic dimension. He calls themap “The five dimensions of interaction” (Figure 30). It consists of thefollowing dimensions:

1. The product dimension - Is the product or technical system as describedin the theory of technical systems, by e.g. degrees of freedom. The userinterface is a part of this product description.

2. The dimension of user physiology - Is the description of physiologicalattributes such as anthropometry, reach and movement, strength andfatigue.

3. The activity dimension - Describes the work processes that the user andproduct perform together. The activity is described by the results of theactivity, and by the life cycle phases, the activity passes through.

4. The dimension of the users intellect - Is the description of psychologicalattributes of the user such as knowledge, experience, personal bias,cultural background etc.

5. The fifth and last concurrent dimension is the environment - This meansnot only the physical environment of climate, locale and so on, but alsothe social and cultural context.

6. The sixth dimension is the dynamic - Interaction takes place in time. Notall aspects of interaction come into play at the same time, therefore it isnecessary to map the causality of an interaction in this dimension, HedeMarkussen says.


Figure 30: "The five dimensions of interaction" This model maps the phenomena of interactionbetween the users physiology and intellect on the vertical axis, and between the product and

the activity on the horizontal axis. The environmental conditions are mapped in the outer ring.(from Hede Markussen 1995)

Between these dimensions twelve areas of knowledge, which Hede Markussencalls aspects of interaction, find their place:The ergonomic aspect relates to both the physical and the communicativeaspects of the interface between human and product at the level ofinput/output and the problem of function allocation

The plastic aspect includes all that has to do with the user's movements, this isalso traditionally ergonomics, but Hede Markussen wants to isolate theproduct from the action.

The cognitive aspect includes parameters such as mental strategies, motivation,learning, experience, mental models, recognition etc. Parameters of thought inrelation to the activity


The dialog aspect is found between the user's intellect and the product. Unlikethe ergonomic aspect, this aspect has to do with the product and the user'sability to "understand" each other. The user's understanding is related toparameters such as perception, association, gestalt, readability, language,mediation, technical insight etc. While the product registers the users inputthrough interface components. In the dialog perspective, we also findallocation of information carrying functions such as "Who should rememberthis number?"

Moving on into the outer ring of relationships to the environment the modelcovers the following aspects; starting with the product, and moving counterclockwise:The connective aspect covers questions such as where does the product getpower or connect to other products, and what environmental impact does theproduct have.

The aspect of working posture arises from the relationship between theproduct's position and orientation in the workspace.

The aspect of climate influences the user's physiology.

The aspect of space influences the user's ability to move freely.

The aspect of work tasks is the contextual relationship or motivation for thework at hand.

The situational aspect is the way in which the user's situation influences hisactions.

The social aspect is the relationship between the user's intellect and that ofenvironmental and social conditions.

The noise aspect is the disturbances the environment causes in the interaction,e.g. because another product uses similar icons with a different meaning.

A complete world view of interaction and interaction design knowledgeHaving thus created a model of interaction, Hede Markussen populates it withthe sixteen major perspectives on interaction knowledge that he has found inHCI literature (see Figure 31).

These two models and the knowledge they map provides an overview of thefield of HCI by pointing out six dimensions of interaction, 12 aspects ofinteraction and 16 schools of theory with specific knowledge and perspectiveson interaction. This indicates a wealth of sources describing both theproperties and the phenomena of interaction, each with a different qualityperspective.


Figure 31: A map of the sixteen major perspectives on interaction (Hede Markussen 1995p100)

A description of the interaction design processThe map has great value as a pedagogical tool for its ability to map andinterrelate all the major schools of interaction theory. But to make the map anoperational tool for designers, Hede Markussen applies the concept of degreesof freedom as described by Hein & Andreassen (1986), (Andreassen 1995).By describing the degrees of freedom of interaction design, he hopes tostructure and analyze the design process, and define the conceptual content ofinteraction. First he compares Hein & Andreassen’s definition, with aproposal for degrees of freedom of interfaces by Buur & Windum (1994) andhis own proposal for interaction as illustrated in Figure 32. Then he developsan expanded proposal for eight design degrees of freedom, one for each ofthe aspects in his model of interaction (Figure 33). The eight degrees offreedom may be interrelated at each level, as indicated by a circle of dottedlines on one level in the figure. The total interaction being described by alleight, together at that level.


Figure 32: Comparison of design degrees of freedom in machine systems (left) interfaces(center) and interaction (right). High-level problem definitions and processes are part of the

interactive system of man and machine (from Hede Markussen 1995)

Figure 33: Sketch for a complete map of interaction design degrees of freedom. (HedeMarkussen 1995)


He notes that for a complete description of all eight degrees of freedom, itwould be necessary to find or develop the causal relationships between eachaspect. He finds that Rasmussen (1994) has the beginnings of such a proposalfor the aspect of cognition (Figure 74, page172) and that Buur & Windum(1994) have a complete proposal for the interface (Figure 32). He thenpopulates the rest of the aspects with a few examples, but does not pursue thisline of study any further.

Describing a design procedure depends on knowledge about the designobjectUnfortunately, Hede Markussen lacks the knowledge for filling in all thedegrees of freedom for the eight aspects of interaction he has chosen andlacks knowledge about the relationships between the aspects. He only makesan intuitive, comparative ordering of levels between the eight degrees offreedom.I think it is wise not to pursue this line of inquiry because the field ofinteraction design is still young, divergent and exploratory. Any proposal forfilling in properties and design procedures must end in a discussion ofvalidity claims to different views of the totality. Such a map will have toremain incomplete for some time, meaning that its operational value will bereduced.

The domain theory may be a better way of mapping knowledgeThe design degrees of freedom are derived from another, and more flexibletheory in engineering design, the Domain Theory of Technical Systems. Thisway of organizing knowledge does not need a specific description of thedesign object or the design process, but is based on mapping the navigationaldecisions and models of the designer in four general domains of knowledgeinterest. I conclude that a map similar to or developed from the DomainTheory of Technical Systems may be better proposal. It does not requireprecise knowledge about the design object or an ideal design process, butinstead maps many different design procedures and models of the designobject by simply categorizing them according to knowledge interest

The theory of transformation systems defines the relationship between actorsand activitiesThe five dimensions of interaction primarily differentiate between activities,products, the user's physical and intellectual properties. Environmentalconditions contain them all. Between them, in the quadrants of the map, thereexist a further four aspects that are composites of the primary four. Forinstance, it is necessary to know something about the users intellect and theproduct interface in order to make a good dialog between them. And it isnecessary to know something about the activity and the users physique inorder to understand how a user will react to a certain activity. We can see thatthere is a relationship, in the form of the quadrants being aggregated frominteraction between the axis. Does this mean that actual interaction is in thequadrants while the properties of the actors and the activity is on the axis? Ifthis is the case why not build a theory of interaction on the theory oftransformation systems, in which all the actors and their relationships areexplicated? If this is the case, properties of the human sub system aredescribed on the dimensions intellect and physique. Properties of thetechnical sub-system are described on the dimension of product interface.The outer circle constitutes the sub-system of the active environment and


properties of the transformation process are described by the activity aspect.The properties in the quadrants are the actual phenomena of interaction. Theyare not equal to the effects in the transformation system, but are the result ofsubjectively valued properties; in effect, qualities.

Interaction quality and quality design methodsHede Markussen observes that knowledge of interaction quality seems diffuseand difficult to understand in both the industrial and research communities.Mørup (1993) states that the user's quality experience may be attributed toquality properties. Since aspects of interaction are partially described withinall the degrees of freedom in his model of interaction, Hede Markussenspeculates on whether it is possible to find common denominators that mightindicate some stable interaction properties. He does not fill in a map ofinteraction properties, but exemplifies the kind of properties to be found withJacob Nielsen’s (1993) five properties of usability; learnability, efficiency,memorability, errors, and satisfaction.He finds that simply interpreting interaction quality as a vector of properties isinsufficient, and continues by describing an experience based empathicapproach to design inspired by Stolterman´s aesthetics approach (1994 andchap. 1.3). He mentions cooperative design, and scenario based designmethods as interesting possibilities for attaining empathy with the user but hedoes not integrate it in his map. He states that “because an experience basedapproach is tied to a designer as an individual, teamwork becomes difficult”.The problem with the empathic approach he says indicates the need forapplying both approaches together. In search of a solution, he finds fourschools of HCI that address interaction quality. The first two are based on anengineering perspective, the two last on an empathic perspective:1. Jacob Nielsen’s usability heuristics (1993) are a collection of experience

based statements about interaction quality.2. Jens Rasmussen’s cognitive systems engineering (1994) describes

interaction quality as the degree by which the user may adopt a naturalmental strategy, as opposed to being forced to change strategy. Relevantcognitive patterns are defined by task analysis.

3. Morten Kyng (1994) proposes that interaction quality is reached bybasing design on the users experiences and preferences as they are foundby involving the user in design workshops. The cooperative designapproach.

4. Bill Verplank (1993) bases the designers understanding of interactionquality on the values that are expressed through user characterization andscenario descriptions. The designer collects data by observation andinterview.

Since he can find a collection of methods and models for both designapproaches, but is unable to fit them into “The five dimensions ofinteraction”, his solution is to present them based in relation to a simpledesign process and a recommended where techniques from both the empathicand the engineering approach should be applied.

The question, what is interaction quality, remains fragmentary and vague afterHede Markussen’s treatment. He bases his models on Mørup’s (1993)proposal that quality is a subjective vector of product properties. Although, hefinds this proposal insufficient he does not discuss it in relation to empathyand the user's perception of totality. Also, he recommends a combination ofan engineering design approach and an empathic design approach. However,he does not describe the right balance between empathy and systematic design


or how to integrate an empathic design approach into “The five dimensionsof interaction”.

Quality is not a vector of interaction but an element in itI propose that the reason Hede Markussen’s ideas do not succeed is that heassumes that interaction is reducible to properties, and that quality is related tothe individual elements. This approach excludes empathic design methodsbecause they are based on developing an understanding of the totality as Ihave demonstrated in the beginning of this chapter.Furthermore, an empathic approach is not suitable for description in thedegrees of freedom because it encompasses many or all the properties all thetime.

Requirements of a complete model of interactionIn my analysis, Hede Markussen’s “Five dimensions of interaction” resultedin the following criteria for a complete model of interaction related toengineering design theory:1. Interaction should be described by developing the transformation system

model.2. Describing interaction design with design degrees of freedom requires

more stable and better interrelated knowledge. The information to definedesign degrees of freedom is not yet present, so a description ofinteraction must be flexible.

3. The domain theory of technical systems provides a similar way ofstructuring knowledge that is independent of the state of the knowledgeand independent of a specific design procedure. It is therefore bettersuited to organize interaction design knowledge in its current state.

4. Quality is an integrated part of interaction because interaction is anexperience. This means that it is necessary to clearly differentiate betweenproperties of the system that supports interaction and interaction itself.

5. Breaking down interaction into basic building blocks for a systematicdesign process makes it difficult to describe an empathic design process.Empathic design requires mapping an interaction design process at aholistic level.

3.4 Interaction is a process of giving meaning to atransformation systemIn the first part of this chapter I found empirical and theoretical support forproposing that aesthetic elements are the same as product properties, but thatthe designer thinks of them for the experiences they afford the user in steadof the effects they create in the system. I have also pointed out that it isinsufficient simply to critique isolated properties based on a subjective qualityperception. In stead, it is necessary to develop models that allow a commonexperience of the totality as a basis for an aesthetic discussion.

In chapter 1.3 I introduced the Transformation System as a complete modelof the actors and effects involved in realizing some user determined goal. Astrong point of the Transformation system model is that it separates the actorsfrom the process in which the actors are taking part, the Transformationprocess (TP). This makes it easy to identify the effects each element producesand receives, like Verplank et.al. (1993) recommend when differentiatingbetween interface and interaction (chap. 1.2). But unlike the matter, energy


and information that is seen flowing through a technical system, interaction isa process of interpretation, and thereby, a process that creates meaning. Thecreation of meaning is not inherent in the system but constitutes somethingnew that is continually added and modified when the system is active. For thepurpose of describing interaction, the Transformation system needsexpansion: Effects must be described in relationship to a theory of signs,because experience and interpretation is fundamental to interaction. I will notdetail and discuss such theories because there are many, and they areconnected to a large complex of thought. I will only sketch how interactionmay be described by using one of the most influential theories of signs, byCharles Sanders Pierce. The semiotic sign according to Pierce is triadic(Jørgensen 1993) (Vihma 1995). It is a relationship between a medium orrepresentamen (R), an object (O) and an interpretant (I).

Figure 34: Pierce’s sign is not an object but a relation

Very briefly stated this means that a thing in some respect or capacity (R)refers to something (O), which means something when someone interprets it(I).

A product or an activity may constitute elements of a semiotic sign (R-O).According to Pierce, the interpretant is not equivalent to an individualinterpreter. The Interpretant (I) may be conceived as a process ofinterpretation, an on-going sign production. However, a triadic signnecessarily involves an interpreter. "A sign addresses somebody, that is itcreates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a moredeveloped sign", says Pierce (Vihma 1995 pp. 61-66).7

Based on this background, and using the Transformation system model wecan say that all the actors and the transformation process (TP) they are takingpart in, constitute a meaningful activity - a sign. Interaction is apparent at aphysical level of material and energy flows (R), as coded information layeredover and carried by the material and energy (O), and at an interpretory level(I) in the minds of those involved. These two layers are non-intersecting andconstitute two different ways of understanding, or rationalities. The first isahistoric, simply describing what is there and how its being there determinesbehavior. The second is explanatory and cognitive. “A cognitive system is asystem whose organization defines a domain of interactions in which it canact with relevance to the maintenance of itself, and the process of cognition isthe actual (inductive) acting in this domain” says Maturana (1970 p.13)(Winograd & Flores 1986 p.47). It is a process of interpretation that connectsa person, subjectively, to the actions he or she is taking part in. Thisinterpretation is contextual and continual, meaning that the transformationsystem is an arena for continuous redefinition that is necessary for the systems 7 Also see Intentionality and Thrownness on page 24 onwards


survival . Varela and Maturana define this phenomena as autopoiesis. “… anetwork of processes of production (transformation and destruction) ofcomponents that produces the components that: (i) trough their network ofinteractions and transformations continuously regenerate the network ofprocesses (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine)as a concrete unity in the space in which they (the components) exist byspecifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network”(Maturana & Varela 1980 p.79).

3.5 Conclusion: Quality is indivisible from interactionIn this chapter, I set out to explore the research question: How can designersinfluence interaction quality?In order to build on engineering design theory, interaction itself and therelationship between elements of interaction and interaction quality had to beunderstood.

Quality is a component of interactionMy first hypothesis was that: Interaction is the process of making sense ofexperiences as action takes place, therefore interaction quality is integral andfundamental to interaction, not a vector of interpretation like quality is inrelationship to product properties.I will explain with an example: A computer is made out of plastic, printedcircuit boards, wiring silicon etc. The energy running through it and theinformation coded as 1’s and 0’s or any of the other codes that constitute itsprograms are all measurable. When you ask the user what he is doing with thecomputer, you might get the answer “ I am writing poetry” Similarly youmay then describe and measure the goings on in the poet. However, thepoetry will not be apparent in any of this, nor will the relationship between thepoets writing instrument (the computer) and the poetry he is creating bedirectly measurable. When the poetry is saved to the hard-disk, it ceases toexist as poetry. Only a representation of the poetry as magnetically codedinformation is saved, with the hope that it will reoccur when the reader sees it.The poetry is the actual interaction that is taking place. Without the poetryand the other Things stored in its codes, the computer would cease to exist asa meaningful system.

In the progression bar study I showed that it was possible to model interfacebehavior and to initialize a discussion of aesthetic issues based on directinteraction experiences. I showed that dynamic, aesthetic elements, such astime and movement might be manipulated in much the same way astraditional, static, visual elements. The subjects identified and categorizedinteraction experiences in a way, similar to Laban’s movement qualities. Thenthey developed interpretations based on prior experience and empathicunderstanding of the machine's activities. After a detailed empirical study ofusers interaction thinking, Dag Svanes named these processes kinestheticthinking, and the elements of interaction experiences, interaction gestalts. Myresults support his finding that users think in terms of metaphor, and thatusers create naïve causal relationships to support their experience.In the “Kø-fri” study, I showed that it was possible to measure and comparethe experience of interaction gestalts indirectly by grading abstractions ofsimilar experiences in the form of semantic differentials. Based on thereviewed literature and reported empirical studies it seems that users base theiraffect and understanding of interaction on the following four phenomena:


1. The visual experience, like in art.2. The dynamic experience, like in dance.3. Reasoning based on an imagined causality, and metaphorical

understanding of interaction gestalts. E.g.: "The progression bar ismoving in steps, so the computer must be working hard"

4. Reasoning about the visual interpretation of artifacts and their expectedcontext of use from a descriptive and social perspective like: "Looks funto drive, but I can't be seen in a Porsche!"

Mørup’s definition of user quality (Q) is:“Quality is the customer’s experience (or perception of how well the totalityof quality properties of a product satisfies his stated or implied needs”(Mørup 1993 p91) This definition holds up to my findings, but Mørup’sdefinition does not state that the customer (or user’s) experience comes as aresult of interaction, even though he makes a point of this in his text: “ It isvery important to note, that Q and q are not characteristics of the productalone, but can only be observed through the stakeholders when theirinteractions with the product take place” (Mørup 1993 p99).

This means that a phenomenological perspective describes interaction betterthan the engineering design perspective because it starts with the premise thatthe whole, actual interaction experience is fundamental, and that any attemptat breaking it down into descriptive categories, removes some aspect of theobject being described. At some point enough details are lost, to loose sight ofcomposite phenomena such as interaction quality, and affective experiences.This means that designing from product properties towards a totality becomesdifficult, and the design degrees of freedom approach becomes unworkable inits present state8. It is not possible to specify interaction quality by simplyfinding and fitting together the right properties for a product. Interactionquality is dependent on the users perception of interaction gestalts, and on thecommunication process between user technical system, active environmentand transformation process. Interaction quality may only be studied throughactual interactions or secondarily through accounts of interaction experiences.Although interaction quality may not be designed completely into theproduct or measured in the product, it’s presence may be measured. Oneshould employ methods that uncover the user's interpretation and affectiveresponse to interactions set in a simulated or actual context of use.

Interaction is a process of giving meaning to a transformation systemMy second hypothesis was that: Interaction is a layer of meaning that comesinto existence as a result of affective response to, and interpretation of, theeffects and transformations of the transformation system. It is not inherent inor derivable from the properties and effects of the transformation system.Interaction is the process of meaning giving that continually establishes,reconstitutes and redefines the transformation system.

The three studies of interaction quality based on the experience of productbehavior in section 3.2 showed that the user creates interpretations of themachines actions based on prior experience, affect and naïveanthropomorphic concepts of causality in the machine system.By the application of sign theory in section 3.4, I positioned interactionoutside conventional technical systems theory, as a new layer of meaning of 8 Degrees of design freedom start with the users problem. It is necessary to expand thispoint into an inquiry into the motivations and values that create the problem.


the transformation system, in such a way that it expands engineering design’sconceptual domain.

A discussion of interaction quality requires models for a commonexperience of useMy third hypothesis was that: The designers understanding of interactionphenomena may be represented by models in the same ways that products are.It is only the interpretation of the models that differ. Models of interaction donot replicate elements of the interactions themselves but describe theinteractions second hand or create the conditions for experiencing a similarinteraction directly.

Literature studies of aesthetic design elements in the visual arts and dance insection 3.1 showed that making aesthetic judgements and conducting adiscussion about interaction quality requires a common experience betweendesigner and user. The “Progression bar” and “Kø-fri” studies in section3.2 showed that this is may be achieved. I used the semantic differentialtechnique and user quotations to create models of second hand accounts ofinteractions experiences. And I developed interaction experiences throughproduct simulations.

The results indicate that by discovering and designing for phenomena thatinfluence kinesthetic thinking, designers can explore interaction quality. Andby studying how others perceive the interactions they have afforded, and byidentifying the same experiences in themselves, designers can train akinesthetic sensitivity to aid this process.

Leaving the matter of design elements and building blocks, I will now turn tothe problem, of understanding interaction from a holistic perspective. HedeMarkussen pointed out that an empathic design approach was incompatiblewith a systematic engineering design approach. Is this really the case? Or it isa matter of perspective not of systematic procedure?

4.0 The multiple concepts of interaction style

How does the designer influence interaction style? In this chapter, somegeneral directions of style theory are traced through the visual arts, theperforming arts, archeology, before a common basis for current style theoryis found in linguistics. The concept of style is found too diverse to applydirectly to interaction. In stead, four questions about style provide theconditions for developing an understanding of interaction style. A proposalfor a complete model of interaction based on the theory of communicativeaction is found to provide a basis for understanding the designers style ofthinking. The idea of dividing style into levels with different criteria ofprecision is explored empirically. It provides a general understanding ofstyles of thinking, but proves to be too general for a practical interaction styleanalysis were contextual criteria must be used.Finally, the problem of styling is addressed. If style is made an explicit part ofthe design procedure, there is a risk that the application of style elementsresults in lower quality and affective power in the solution. I explore thepossibility and risks of interaction styling and conclude that the designercannot avoid interaction styling if he is to be aware of the style he is workingin, and that it is the users in a social context that uphold meaning or demodé astyle.


"...you cannot express unless you have a system of expression; and youcannot have a system of expression unless you have a prior system of thinkingand feeling; you cannot have a system of thinking and feeling unless youhave a basic system of living". The systems of living for artists as well aspeople are culturally conditioned and the step by step definition of the broadcategories of visual expression helps to understand the relationship betweenindividual style and the precedence and dominance of cultural style."

Louis Sullivan

Architect

THE MULTIPLE CONCEPTS OF INTERACTION STYLE 85

4.1 Style has many applications and meaningsIn the previous chapter, a search for interaction quality concluded that qualityis a component of the interpretation process that places interaction at a higherlevel than the basic effects in a transformation system. An attempt at creatinga complete model of interaction by identifying properties of the actors andthe interactions between them and describing the interaction design processby degrees of design freedom proved to lack knowledge and to leave out anempathic, holistic designing approach.

As stated in chapter 1.7, the major goal of this thesis is to develop a theoreticalbasis for discussions about the constituent elements of interaction, theirqualities and the resulting style of the totality. The second major researchquestion was: How do designers influence a style of interaction in a socialcontext?

In this chapter, I will address the problem of describing the connectionbetween design and the total style of an interaction. In effect working fromthe totality inwards, in stead of searching for building blocks and workingoutwards.

At the present, we are overwhelmed by applications of the term style: X is astyle, X has style, X has its own style, X has no style, X was made with styleetc. Style may be a property of people or of artifacts or artifacts may be therealization of a style. The background for such a multitude of applicationslies in the history of all the fields that have employed the term. To explore thenature of style, introduce a phenomenologically based definition and anoperational proposal for interaction style, it will be necessary to take a closerlook at style theory. In this section, style in the visual arts and design, inarcheology, dance, and finally, linguistics is reviewed in search of commondenominators that define the term, and makes its application to interactionfeasible. The reason for building on these four fields is that they trace a paththrough the history of style theory:The early meaning of style was mannerism, a matter that is covered in writingson etiquette and in the performing arts. Dance is a representative of thesefields, because it is used in social contexts as well as in performances. As aperformance it will sometimes function together with song and theater, andneeds to build on or synthesize the theories and requirements of these artforms. Archeology follows another branch of application, the dating andinterpretation of artifacts, and the writing of their history. Archeology uses theresults of a visual design or artistic process as its basis for analysis. Thereforeit is natural to continue with a study of style in the visual arts, design andarchitecture. Finding that mannerisms, theories of the structural evolution ofstyle and visual style, have adopted linguistic theories, it is necessary, finally tolook at linguistic style theory. This results in a summary in the form of sixcritical questions to the application of style that constitutes a formalism ofsorts for this multi faceted field.The questions are answered in an attempt at defining interaction style,including a phenomenological interpretation of style, and a review of anattempt at operationalizing interaction style and creating a completedescription of interaction quality from a holistic perspective.

The concept of style and an empathic approach to design raises the questionof styling. How can we retain a holistically based quality experience when it ismade that object of analysis and design? The final section of this chapterattempts to explore this problem.


Style in DanceHammergren describes the history of style theory in dance, in her thesis“Form and Meaning in Dance” (1991 pp. 37-64). During the renaissance, aword similar to style was the Italian "maniera". Although it stems from theFrench "maniére" of the 1200's, this is the starting point for tracing styletheory in dance. Maniera was used in many different ways, but generally, onecan say that it meant a, usually desirable, attribute of works of art.The word often appeared in books of etiquette. In this context "... manierawas a way of life so refined and abstracted from the laws of nature that it wasin effect a work of art it self" (Shearman, 1967, p18). Maniera had to do withhow one should conduct one self in social life. It had to do with ways ofspeaking, posture and movement. The postural elements later became thebasis for classical ballet. In the formal, upper class dancing of the time, thevocabulary of movements was a central part, and also the way in which themovements were carried out. "One should employ the smoothness with whicha gondola passes, pushed along by little waves when the sea is as tranquil asis her nature" (Domenico cited and translated in Franko 1986 p63) Thisdescription is what would today be called movement quality.From being a positive term in the 1400´s, in reaction to its extreme forms,maniera took on negative connotations in the 1600´s. As a result, the term wasnot used in the literature. In stead one wrote about positions, patterns ofmovement and expression of movement. It seems that normative valuejudgments were implicit in the analytic description of form and structuremuch like the treatment of form in 20´th-century functionalism.In the 1700´s, the concept of style emerges again in genres. Dance could bedeveloped according to genres similar to theater: comedy, drama, farce, etc.Each type had its set of attributes such as posture and movement quality, andwas discussed for similarities to theatrical forms. To conform to the genre thedancers physiognomy was also important. This lead to the categorization ofdancers and the appreciation of good dancers ability to express thecharacteristics of the genre.In the 1800’s, style appears as a concept, different from genre. Style is nowdependent on genre but also an expression of individuality. It becomes morecommon to compare dancers to each other. A dancer has a style, and mayconsciously develop a style to fit the piece being performed. The style mustthen build on and support the nature of the performance and the costume.Manier has also returned to the vocabulary as a description of how amovement should be executed. It1s used as a more abstract and specific termdenoting structure and form within the genre.In the 1900’s, dance research has grown. Theory of style however hasremained vague, building on the multiple dimensions of the visual arts, musicand theater. According To Hammergren, modern theory of style in dance isinspired by linguistic and visual style theory because the two major elementsof dance are form and meaning. Dance may be seen as a communicative actbetween choreographer, and the audience with the dancer as medium andmediator. Alternatively it may be seen as a visual, temporal composition forthe audience to experience as a finished work of art. (E.g., the concept of thefourth wall of the stage, through which the audience can see)


Figure 35: Foster’s (1986 231f) adaptation of Roman Jacobson's communication model todance

Stylistic dance analysis has different schools of thought. Some focusing onlyon form, some on both form and meaning. Some schools focus only onquantifiable characteristics, others on qualitative importance of the elements.Some propose that style may only be understood through comparison, othersbelieve that style may be identified in an individual piece or person.Hammergren concludes that one should analyze style as both form andmeaning using both qualitative and quantitative judgments. Since style thenincludes significant traits of all aspects of a dance, the description is socomprehensive that it should be possible to attribute a style to individualworks.

Visual style helps dating and geographical location inarcheologyBertil Almgren presents modern theories of style in archeology in "Styleconcepts in archeology" (1982 pp. 19-28). In archeology, the breakthroughin the application of style research came in 1904 when Salin (1922) publishedhis "Die Altgermanishe Tierornamentikk" where he analyzed and dated pre-Viking animal ornamentation in Scandinavia based on motif (Figure 36).However later research has shown that Salin's styles are inconsistent with timeand place. Could it be that artists combined many 100-year-old ornamentalmotifs with new ones? How could a motif then represent an age?

Figure 36: Salin's style II and III are illustrated by grouping types of animal ornament(Almgren 1982 p20)


Later theories of style propose that it is not the choice of motif, but the shapeand structure of its execution that identifies the style. (See Figure 37) Nowstyle is used as a system for categorizing formal differences of visualaesthetics thereby helping to date and geographically pinpoint artifacts.According to Almgren, style especially in arts and crafts could becharacterized as "...a strictly regulated selection of elements or line, withcommon properties that are put together after certain rules concerningdirection relative to each other. (parallelism or not, symmetry or not,divergence or convergence) " (1982 p27, authors translation). A change ofstyle could be characterized by an obvious change in curvature or theprinciples of composition. Often in the form of an anti-style: By building onthe previous style, but changing it to an opposite in some way, the new stylewould find its own identity. The ornaments that are depicted could beindependent of the style, living longer due to their denotative value.

Figure 37: Chinese Yin style ornaments from 2000 BC: Parallelograms, short straight sections

and sharp curves contrast with Huai style from 500-200 BC with continually changingdirection and a curvature that increases towards the ends. (Almgren 1982 p23)

Style in the visual disciplines - Art, Architecture andDesignIn the introduction to her thesis on applying a phenomenological style theoryto architectural analysis, Anna-Majia Ylimaula presents the following historyof style theory:

From Vetruvius' "Ten Books of Architecture" in the first century BC to theRenaissance, authors have described categories of aesthetic properties ofarchitecture. For example:Vetruvius c.100 BC: durability, convenience, beautyIsidor von Sevilla c.560-636: disposition, construction, beautyLeon Battista Alberti 1452: number, finishing, congruity/unity

Dividing art into periods of style was first used by Georgio Vasari in his 1550book about artists of the previous four centuries. His basic idea was that styleshad lives; they were born, matured and died. He originated the termsAntiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance (rebirth) as descriptions of the peaksof such cycles or waves. Mannerism of the 16th century was seen as thedecline of the Renaissance wave. At J.J.Winckelman's time (1717-1768),Europe became aware of other cultures and their styles. E.g. Chinese art wasbecoming a part of interior decoration at this time. Winckelman opened for afreer division of styles based on outside influences such as climate, nature and


social order. The French Academician George Louis de Buffon in 1753declared that a plan was the basis for style, it guides it, regulates itsmovements, and subordinates it to rules. Johan Wolfgang von Goethe believedthe word style to mean both personal style and the concept of manner. Whenan artist creates a new style, he is creating his own personal language toexpress the nature or essence of things in contrast to merely imitating amanner of expression. Goethe’s understanding is still common today. In1828, Heinrich Hübsch published "In welchem Style sollen wir bauen". Hetried to name some objective principles based on the needs for comfort andsolidity that might be applied to finding a better style of building than theclassical ideals. Although inspiring eclecticism, his approach was normativewith an emphasis on local tradition and materials. Eduard Melzter in 1845continued this line of reasoning in "Beitrag zum Zeitfrage: In welchem Stilbauen". He suggested that one should search for new styles in the newmaterial of iron with its preference for fine lines and diagonal bracing. "Stylewas, around 1800 and all through the 19th century, an honorary word. Areal artist had style. The major arts were style, because they answered theinner yearnings of the time"(Authors translation of Zeitler 1983). Accordingto Ylimaula (1991 p34), neo romanticist poets like R.H. Rilke thought"something new is born of everything that was before". Hector Guimardapplied this idea to architecture in 1902 "a style is born of all previous styles”.By observing the forms taken by different principles of architecture andunderstanding how our predecessors arrived at them, they thought it would bepossible to extrapolate towards the new time that was coming. Thisevolutionary style concept was inspired by Darwin and grew in popularityaround 1900. The idea was already present in archeology, where undatedobjects of art and architecture were categorized and grouped. It seemed thatone could follow the development of a stylistic trait through a life cycle. Itstarted out unclear, mixed with past styles, stood out on its own in a primitiveform that was refined, and finally became diffuse again in a transition tonewer styles. Towards the Second World War interest for this approachcooled. It was found, by newer archeological dating methods that objects werenot in the order the evolutionary method prescribed. In addition, interest inthe sociological and psychological aspects of artistic creativity opened for thestudy of other causal relationships. (Zeitler 1983)

With Gottfried Semper in the middle of the 19th century style theory evolvedto embrace meaning. Semper argued against applying the popularbiologically inspired evolutionary theories of the time, in favor of explainingdramatic leaps of style in terms of socio-political impetus.

Leaving Ylimaula’s review of style history, I find that Donis A. Dondis of theBoston University School of Public Communication, is a representative of thecurrent, applied approach to linguistic style theory in art and design. In “ Aprimer of visual literacy" originally published in 1973 (1993), she sees styleinfluencing artistic expression in much the same way as conventions do. Butstylistic rules are subtler that conventions, exerting on the creative actinfluence rather than control.


"Style, in the visual arts, is the ultimatesynthesis of all the forces and factors,the coming together, the annealing ofmany decisions and steps. At the firstlevel is the choice of medium, and theinfluence of the medium on the formand content. Then, there is purpose,the reason why something is beingmade". ... "The actual making presentsa series of options: the search forcompositional decisions by means ofchoice of elements and recognition of

elemental character; the manipulation of the elements through the choice ofappropriate techniques. The final result is an individual (or sometimes group)expression monitored by many of the above factors, but mainly and mostdeeply, influenced by what is going on in the social and physical andpolitical and psychological environment, all of which are crucial toeverything we do or express visually" (Dondis 1993 pp. 129-132). Continuingby describing some of the perceptual influences that shape our values, Dondispoints out that our social patterns: our behavior and understanding of eachother has enormous influence on our perception of our world. The sameforces that create common languages also create a shared form of visualexpression.

Style in LinguisticsAll the three fields thus far reviewed point to modern linguistic theory as abasis for style theory. A review of some aspects of this large and divergentfield will therefore conclude this introductory literature review.

Style is a word of multiple meanings, so Enkvist’s (1983) linguistic approachto style theory naturally begins by analyzing the meanings of the word styleitself: Style contains a subjective value loaded element of meaning. (E.g.:What has style is good, what lacks it is bad. A woman with style is better than awoman with no style.) In aesthetic sciences and daily language, we talk aboutstyle in periods, genres, groups and individuals. A natural language will havestyle variations like, historic forms, dialects, social differences, genderdifferences, and individual differences. These variations are of interest toresearchers as well as teachers and laymen. Everybody has someunderstanding of the stylistic values of language as a part of their socialintelligence and breeding. In practical literature criticism, linguistic styles areoften described metaphorically: a text may be clear, flowing, heavy,cumbersome, baroque or pedantic etc. This may be sufficient as anoperational critique, but only the start of a scientific understanding of style. Aspecific theory of style must be integrated in a total theory of language, andpossibly consciousness (Enkvist 1983 pp. 47-58). When attempting adefinition of style, two basic approaches may be chosen. Either searching fora definition that covers, as far as possible, the popular usage of the term, or,developing style as a technical term within some theory or conceptualframework. Enkvist chooses to search for a definition closest to the popularunderstanding. Since design is a practically oriented field, this also seems thebest approach for developing an operative understanding of style, as is mypurpose. He describes four popular usages of the term:


1. Style as decoration: There is a naked way of expression (logic) that maybe ornamented with rhetoric, thereby attaining style. If ornamentations arestyles then stylistics is the knowledge of such ornamentation.

2. Style as a contextual or genre connected language: Style is a mode ofexpression associated with a certain context of communication. E.g. sportsjournalism or a business discussion. This necessitates sociologicalobservations and knowledge of culture, traditions and individualidiosyncrasies. In practice such an approach would allow as manylinguistic styles as there are categorizable situations. There are manypossible delimitation’s based on e.g. function. Such delimited groups canbe excellent pedagogical tools when studying isolated cases, but a generaltheory is problematic since there is no end to them.

3. Style as a choice: If we suppose that a message may be expressed in anumber of different ways, then the choice of synonymous expressionsmay result in different styles. Unlike style as decoration, style as choicedoes not exclude style from any category. This approach poses twoproblems: a stylistic analysis would necessitate a dualistic semantic ofcontent and expression or a monistic theory with a biunique relationshipbetween content and expression. In either case the question is posed; whatis our criterion for synonymy? The other problem is that analysis(especially of text or video) is de facto. How can we know whatpossibilities for expression were present at the time of conception?

4. Style as a discrepancy and thereby a result to be compared: The basicpresumption in this case is that all style is the result of comparison. Whenwe read a new text we compare it to our experiences with previous texts.The material we choose for our comparison is an expression of ourcontext and culture. If we compare a sonnet, it will be natural to use othersonnets as a basis, but if this particular sonnet contains similarities to thetelephone directory, it will also be drawn into the comparison. Ourinternalized network of text categories may be called a network of"norms" A style will then be the result of comparison between an instanceand a network of norms.

Enkvist suggests that all these perspectives may be integrated: When a personspeaks or prepares a text, he analyses his situation in the light of contextualcategories, looks for expressive possibilities, chooses among them with hisnetwork of norms and chooses a norm based on the situational context andknowledge of how people in his culture would express themselves in a similarsituation.

Figure 38: Johanneson (1983 p60) presents a diagram that supports Enkvist’s view: Style isboth a quality of a text as such and the ability to vary and addapt language to different

situations.


Hermerén (1983) suggests that Enkvist’s linguistic style concept may beexpanded and modified for other fields of study. According to Hermerén,Enkvist says that, "styles may be sought within all systems which allowdifferent behavior within limits demarked by a certain set of rules. Such a styledefinition may be applied to all art, to clothing, games, athletics, sports, andother types of action. A business man or a surgeon or a car driver would thenhave style: the car driver for example, might, within the framework of thetraffic laws, choose whether he would drive softly or unevenly, closer to themiddle or to the side of the road etc. The context stands forth as a styledefining factor and any violations of the rule become style markers..."(authorstranslation)

Enkvist himself proposes the following expanded and general definition ofstyle, which he formulates as a style analytic method (1983 p239):"Style as a result of comparison:The basic thesis of this style perspective is that all style experiences arise fromcomparison. When we observe an artifact we compare it consciously orunconsciously with our prior experiences of comparable artifacts. We choosethe material of comparison ... because our knowledge of the relevant culturalbackground indicates that it is related with the artifact we observe. Thiskinship can depend on content and theme, on function and the technology bywhich the artifact was made, and on connections in time, space and socialsituation. ... The material of comparison has been systematized, by the viewer,to a reference system, which may be called a network of norms. In otherwords; in this network of norms, he has compiled his prior experiences ofartifacts to a style taxonomy like a catalogue that makes it possible for him tofind correspondences, both differences and likenesses, between new artifactsand the previous norms.The comparison results in an identification of style markers, elements in theartifact that show significant similarities and differences between artifacts andthe relevant norms. It is the style markers and their interaction in the artifactthat gives it its stylistic distinction. Every new style experience can in turninfluence the relevant norms, which thereby change with growing experience.Different individuals can have different amounts and types of experience andtherefore different norms that lead to different conceptions of style in the sameartifact. Only a common network of norms can lead to a common styleexperience" (authors translation).


A summary: Six problems of style theoryHermerén (1983 pp192-215) summarizes style problems in linguistics in sixquestions and details each of them. He suggests that they may point the wayto a general theory of style transcending, aesthetics, archeology andlinguistics. It seems that they have sufficiently general validity to serve as asummary of the problems of style theory for this thesis and might provide asa path towards an understanding of the designer’s relationship to interactionstyle.

1: What kinds of problems are style applied to in research?1. Dating - When did X originate?2. Localization - Where was X made?3. Attribution - Who made X?4. Description - How may X be characterized?5. Comparison - Which similarities/differences exist between X and Y?6. Classification - To which group/type does X belong?7. Interpretation - What do properties of X mean?8. Explanation - Why does X have certain properties?9. Quality judgment - How should X be valued?Note that questions 1,2,3 and 6 do not need artistic or aesthetic judgment ofproperties, and that 7 8 and 9 are explanatory questions while the rest aredescriptive. In both cases it is important to be aware of what kind of criteriaare used and what scientific school they belong to.

2: What (hidden) presumptions do style reasoning build on?1. Freedom of choice: To what degree is the single artist free to choose a

style? - This question depends on the general philosophical discussion ofthe limits of freedom of will and action that is chosen as a basis.

2. The holism problem: How do individual works relate to the totality of astyle? - Following Hegel one would be inspired to view style as aphenomena above and beyond individuals, while Poppers methodologicalindividualism indicates that the answers can only be found in theindividual works and their relationships to each other.

3. The periodicity problem: Is there any rhythm or periodicity in stylechanges? - Again, these are general problems of history and evolution,which are debated at a philosophical level. They also raise the question ofidentifying criteria for a style.

4. Relativity: How does an individual product relate to the author and thereader? How does the author relate to the reader? The product to culture,etc. ... Every product to be analyzed for its style will have relationships toall other elements in its world. Was the author of a text in a special moodat the time of its conception, what were the premises for its interpretationby the audience, what about the style theoretician evaluation the text?

5. The problem of meaning - Are style and meaning different? Can they beisolated or is style only definable in semantic terms? The idea of style assurface adornment poses the question of its value. E.g., in sportsjournalism or technical writing this might be correct, it is only a matter ofdescribing the result. But for poetry, is it relevant or at all possible toisolate meaning?

6. The problem of autonomy - What is the reason for changes in style? Howis the art that the product arises in, connected to society - socially andeconomically


3: What is the anatomy of the style concept?A starting point for this discussion could be:"A complex of constant or often recurring properties X that characterize (orare employed to characterize) Y". To understand this one needs to understandthe preliminary questions:1. What is X?2. What is Y?3. How do we describe the complex of properties?4. How often does it recur?5. What is meant by characterizing?

4: Can or should one differentiate between styles at different levels?An isolated, single artifact will be found to belong to some context, e.g. theartist’s total production. The artist will be a part of some school or directionthat will belong to some historic period. But if every author has his style, thenthis style cannot characterize an epoch at the same time. This assumes that thesame style concept is used at all levels. If however, different criteria of clarityand precision are used at different levels much of the criticism to style theoryfalls away. It also becomes easier if premises, problems and knowledgeinterests are defined for each level.

5: How can one decide if two works belong to the same style?One way of answering this problem is by defining those properties that aresufficient and necessary for describing the style. But by which evidence canwe say that X and Y do not belong to the same style? Comparative methodshave the advantage that they focus on norms and description. They alsosupport the question: What is a similarity and how does one decide if it ispresent? Likenesses are dependent on type and number of attributes that arecompared e.g. time period, form, structure, symbolic value, meaning, attitudeand ideals.1. That similarities are subjective necessitates their being acceptable..

Correlation must be high were quantitative and subjective methods arecomparable. Subjectivity may be minimized by direct comparison.

2. The viewer who experiences similarities must make a selection.3. The number and nature of similarities must be explored4. The theme of comparison must be specified5. The number and nature of similarities must be compared to the number

of differences.6. The criteria of success is also subjective - it is the acceptance of

colleagues, competent, and informed observers that is the final measure ofsuccess

7. X and Y are of the same style if they deviate in the same way from thesame norms

6: Can style be defined by the concept of deviation from a norm?1. X and Y deviate in the same way from the same norm2. X and Y follow the same norm in the same way3. A deviation can become a norm when it is accepted4. A deviation can never be total without communication breaking down5. If we can have norms at different levels then deviations must exist at

different levels.6. Defining style in terms of deviation from norms seems to have a limited

area of application. It is suited to characterizing an artists work, a literarytradition or epoch but has little relevance for typological analysis.


4.2 What is interaction style?The historical presentation in the first section of this chapter showed that thetheory and application of the term style has developed in reaction toimportant knowledge interests in its own time, and in reaction to its ownmodes of application. The concept of style has gone through several periodswere it has fallen in disrepute due to extreme applications, e.g. with the termsmannerism and styling. The basic idea has then been reformulated based onnew ideas and knowledge interests and has found new applications.Consequently, there is no consistent, generic, application or theory today.However, I have found one formalism that helps explain any application ofthe term; Hermerén’s (1983) six problems of style. In this section, I will useHermerén’s first four questions to look for answers to my second primaryresearch question: How can designers influence interaction style in a socialcontext?

Answer 1 - Applications of interaction styleIn his first question about style, Hermerén suggested nine possibleapplications of style as an answer to the problem of how the concept of styleis applied. In addition, my historical review of style theories showed that stylemight be attributed to both people and objects, at any level from individualinstances to whole cultures and ages. I have chosen to differentiate betweenthree concepts of style: the designer’s style of acting and thinking. The User'sstyle of perceiving and acting, which is actual interaction style, and the object'sstyle of behaving and looking, which is its characteristic mode of presentation.In order to specify my application of the term style, these parameters areillustrated in Table 4. The problem of finding a single formalism fordescribing style becomes evident in the table. All nine applications and allthree understandings of style are relevant to interaction design to somedegree. I must therefore refine my research question in relationship to style:

Questions 1, 2 and 3 are not yet of great importance because the field is soyoung that documentation of all its history is abundant. Since we have firsthand accounts, and documentation of design processes, a style analysis for thepurposes of identifying an object are unnecessary.

Questions 4, 5 and 6 are more relevant. As the field of interaction designdevelops and diversifies the comparison and classification of artifacts becomesa major means of discussing knowledge and trends. These questions havealready been addressed in chapter 3 although superficially, since my goal is tofacilitate a discussion, not conduct a detailed study of interaction quality orstyle in any specific case.

Questions 7, 8 and 9 are central to the second research question.Interpretation, explanation and quality judgements are important activities inthe design process. They are based on the designer’s style of thinking andacting, shape the resulting artifacts and eventually contribute to the evolutionof a style of user interaction. I will therefore focus on creating a basis forexplaining why an interaction and its associated objects have certainproperties. (question eight).


Table 4: Applications of the style concept to analysis and description of three kinds of style.(Object or interaction=X) The scope of this thesis is indicated in the table by reference to

chapters

Style is the

designers way of

thinking and thedesign activities

Style is the object

of interaction

Style is interaction

itself

1. Dating - When did X originate?

2. Localization - Where was X made?

3. Attribution - Who made X?

4. Description - How may X be characterized?

5. Comparison - Which similarities / differences exist between X and Y?

6. Classification - To which group/type does X belong?

7. Interpretation - What do properties of X mean?

8. Explanation - Why does X have certain properties? Focus ofthesis

9. Quality judgment - How should X be valued?

Answer 2 - The basic presumption: style is our nature ofknowingWhat presumptions am I building on? I am assuming that aphenomenological approach best describes the phenomena of interaction. Atthe same time, the designer is limited to influencing interaction through themedia of the product, or system he or she creates. The designer can onlydirectly manipulate the elementary design properties of the product.

To understand style from a phenomenological perspective I will use two Ph.D.theses. The central thoughts of Heidegger’s "Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes"have been summarized by Martin Kusch in his thesis on a comparative studyof Husserl, Heidegger and Gadamer; "Language as Calculus vs. Language asUniversal Medium" (1989). Kusch’s statements are numbered A1-7, A for art.The explanatory notes in between are from Ylimaula who applies his results ina phenomenological approach to the study of the architectural style of Gaudi,Mackintosh and Wagner (1992 p51-552) and from Ylimaula’s selections ofHeidegger (1971) quotations.

A1: We cannot analyze a work of art starting from categories of "thing" or"equipment" since both of these categories become accessible only in andthrough the work of art itself.


Ylimaula: "The fact that Heidegger sees art as language is nothingnew, but what is interesting in his theory of art is his idea that art isnot a random system of signs, but universal language."

Heidegger: "The equipmental quality of equipment was discovered.But how? Not by description and explanation, of what a pair of shoesactually represent; we know only by bringing ourselves before vanGogh's painting. The painting speaks... The art work lets us knowwhat the shoes are in truth." (p35)

A2: The work of art shows us what a being truly is. It reveals the being in itBeing

Heidegger: "The nature of art would then be this: the truth of beingsfulfilling its function or role. But until now art presumably has had todo with the beautiful and beauty, and not with truth" (p36)

A3: The work of art is a happening, a strife between world and earth.Heidegger: "we visit the temple of Paestum at its own site ... the worldof the work that stands there has perished ... the temple-work standingthere, opens up a world and at the same time sets this world backagain on earth" (pp. 40-42)

A4: Art is a happening of truth, truth a strife between illumination andconcealment

Heidegger: "Truth happens only by establishing itself within theconflict and sphere opened by truth itself...Beauty is one way in whichtruth occurs as unconcealdness appears in naked form" (pp. 61, 56)

A5: The creation of artworks corresponds structurally to their preservation;both are matters of receiving rather than active doing.

Heidegger: The creation of an artwork is "rather receiving andhearing (Entnehmen) within the relation of unconceledness. ...Preserving the work means standing within the openness of being thathappens in the work" (p50)

A6: Poetry is the essence of artHeidegger: "Art, as the setting-into-work (catalyst) of truth, is poetry.The nature of art is poetry.... The nature of poetry in turn, is thefounding of truth." (p75)Ylimaula: "Not only is the creation of the work poetic, but preservingthe work is equally poetic... We understand founding as beginning,but it is also bestowing and grounding"Heidegger: "Founding however, is actual only in preserving" (p75)

A7: Art is bound to nations and determines their essence and their beautyHeidegger: "Wherever art happens -- that is, wherever there is abeginning -- a thrust enters history; history either begins or starts overagain. History is thus not a time sequence of events of whatever sort,however important to its appointed task is history in transporting apeople into their endowment" (p77)Ylimaula: comments that Heidegger used the German word Volkwhich means a people, so Kusch’s translation into nation is misleadingas there is no nationalism intended, but rather the unity of language asuniversal medium.


Building on these seven statements about the nature of art, Ylimaula defines aphenomenological understanding of style in architecture. She proposes thatstyle is synonymous with art as described in these statements, and that theobjects of architecture equal the art object or representation. Ylimaula equatesthe forces that create language and visual expression with the essence of art asdescribed by Heidegger and Kusch. She uses style in a very broad sense to gobeyond bounded categories: "Style is the underlying philosophy, the carryingidea which goes through the whole work of art. If philosophy is toodemanding a word, maybe sound thinking and common sense could be used.But if the project lacks this thinking, if architecture lacks philosophy, no stylecan emerge.” (1992 p29).

Based on this line of reasoning she presents a suggestion for a universaltheory of architectural style by modifying the seven statements by Kusch,naming them S for style9:

S1: We cannot analyze architecture starting from the categories "style" or"form" etc., since these categories are accessible only in and through the workof art itself.S2: Style shows us what a building truly is. It reveals the architecture of thebuilding.S3: The work of architecture lets the style occurS4: Style expresses artistic truth.S5: Creating architecture corresponds structurally to its preservation; both aremore matters of receiving than active participation.S6: Poetry is the essence of architecture. Style transforms a mere building intoarchitecture.S7: Architecture is bound to people, and determines their essence and takespart in their history.

With this theoretical basis, looking back to question two, Hermerén’s holismand relativity problems may therefore be answered at an operational level.The phenomenological approach sees style as something beyond individuals.Fundamental to our understanding of the life-world. But since interaction iscontextual interpretation, each individual may identify properties orphenomena that they feel, characterize a style, and build their individualunderstanding around these. In effect both perspectives live side by side,depending on whether one focuses on creation or analysis

Hermerén’s questions of freedom of choice, autonomy, and periodicity arenot an explicit part of my discussion. They are a part of the underlyingphilosophical discussion of phenomenology. Implicitly I am assuming that weare guided by a common, paradigmatic understanding, and that it is only for afew individuals of great vision and creativity to break away, or to move ourunderstanding.

Hermerén’s problem of meaning is answered by Heidegger and Ylimaularespectively. A6: The nature of art is poetry… The nature of poetry in turn, is 9 Dondis (on page 89) and Ylimaula represent two current approaches to style thinking. Itseems that both authors are attempting the same goal; to describe the essence of artisticexpression, and the process by which it is realized in concrete works of art or architecture.The difference is that Dondis only describes the experience of this essence through thecomplex of its material manifestations, while Ylimaula wants to look past the material,erase it, to come directly to the experience in the phenomenological tradition.


the founding of truth S4: Style expresses artistic truth. S3: The work ofarchitecture lets the style occur”

Answer 3 - The anatomy of interaction styleIn his third question Hermerén asks, what is the anatomy of the style concept?He suggests that a discussion start by identifying characteristics, and the waythey are related and connected in a totality.

Hede Markussen has proposed a definition of interaction characteristics andtheir relationship to the totality of interaction as a design object (in chap 3.3).Reviewing the model by Hede Markussen, I concluded that he contributeswith a complete world-view of the schools of interaction. However, he fails tomake a model that allows different scientific perspectives. He adopts theengineering design concepts of properties and degrees of design freedom inorder to organize all the specific knowledge of 16 fields of study. However,he does not find the knowledge necessary to fill in the causal relationshipsbetween the levels that the design degrees of freedom requires. HedeMarkussen is aware of the need for an empathic design approach that capturesthe qualitative aspects of interaction, but he does not integrate it in his map.His map differentiates between activities, products, the user's physical andcognitive abilities. These might be the characteristics of a style, but he doesnot explain how they are related in a totality. As the basis for a discussionabout interaction style, Hede Markussen’s map lacks several vital ingredients.I therefore continued my search for complete descriptions of interaction, as abasis for discussion about interaction and the interaction design process.The Quality in Use Project at the University in Lund tries to answer thequestion of describing interaction quality from the perspective of computersin a context of use. They take an empathic and holistic approach to design.Instead of starting by breaking up interaction into properties, they search fora way of handling interaction quality at a complex level.

In "What kind of Car is a Sales Support System", Ehn et.al (1995) observe thatstyle seems to be a convenient way of categorizing interaction quality at ageneral level. One important property of style being that these generalizationsare based on a broad, contextual, quality perspective of the artifact. "A style inthe other design disciplines (Architecture and Industrial design) is typicallyexpressed by a repertoire of exemplars that in a certain period in time makeup the general frame of reference (Scruton 1979). As in the sciences, this is aquestion of paradigmatic understanding (Kuhn 1962)", Ehn et.al say. Theyaddress the problem of describing interaction quality by speculating onparallels between style concepts in architecture, industrial design, literatureand their own field. Based on the review of the history of architectural styleby Ylimaula (see chap. 4.1), Ehn et.al search for a formal system to aid theirdescription of interaction style. They consider parallels between possiblecomputer related styles and architectural style theories, and conclude thatnone of the architectural style theories presented by Ylimaula provides asufficiently comprehensive and formal theory to apply directly to describinginteraction quality. They seem discouraged by the divergency and complexityof the theories they find, so they turn to empirical studies of computerartifacts-in-use, looking for ways of describing user perceived quality. Theyfind that cooperative design methods seem suitable, however neither thenatural science approach of computer science, or the constructive approach ofengineering provide a grasp of the contextual aspects of interaction.Therefore, they turn to the social, behavioral and humanistic sciences to find atheoretical base with which to organize their findings.


A theory of style based on communicative actionBased on Jürgen Habermas “Theory of Communicative Action” (1984), Ehnet.al suggest that one should concurrently employ three perspectives oninteraction quality. These perspectives are derived from the rationality ofthree different kinds of communicative action, all directed towards developingmutual understanding. They are described in Table 5.

Table 5: Three forms of rationality and their associated quality perspectives

The objective: The cognitive instrumental rationality,which relates to the judgment of objectivefacts, truth and effectiveness. Hence, afocus on rightness.

Quality becomes aquestion of control.

The social: The moral practical rationality, whichrelates to judgments about social actions,and whether they fall within the norms andpractice for social interaction.10

Quality becomes aquestion of truthfulnessand ethical judgment.

The subjective: The esthetical practical rationality, whichrelates to the judgment about subjectiveexperiences, emotional and artisticexpressions.11

Quality becomes aquestion of sincerity andaesthetic judgment.

To find an approach to designing within the three forms of rationality andtheir associated qualities they go to the architectural theory of Vetruviusdeveloped approximately 2000 year years ago, Vetruvius divided the study ofbuildings into firmitas (firmness), utilitas (commodity), and venustas (delight).Ehn et.al find that this approach is still relevant today in the concepts ofstructure, function and form. While we usually judge the quality of artifactsby the objective or structural aspect alone, Ehn et.al say, the style of ITartifacts is to be found in the appropriate balance between all threeperspectives of interaction quality. To apply this theory of interaction style todescribing the interaction quality of IT products necessitates a specificinterpretation of the three aspects of design, and their three qualityperspectives:

• Objective forms are those comprised of the structure, the material ormedium of the artifact. They are objective in the sense that they areinherent to the artifact and as such not dependent on interpretation orcontext.

The quality perspective is one of control, typically formulated as softwaremetrics or quality standards of construction. The artifact is encountered as"material"

• Social norms and practices will in this case materialize as the functions thatare of value to the user. Demands for functionality vary from user to userso it is not simply a matter of the maximum number of features. "Functionis understood as contextual in nature". Functions may be of symboliccharacter as well as utilitarian. E.g., a laptop signifies personal effectivenessand prestige.

10 Habermas calls this form of rationality “normatively regulated actions” (p15 1984)11 Habermas calls this form of rationality “expressive self-representations” (p15 1984) Hepresents the social and subjective forms of rationality in contrast to the cognitive-instrumental rationality that has “…through empiricism, deeply marked the self-understanding of the modern era.” (p10 1984)


The quality perspective is based on ethical judgments associated with thefunction of the artifact. "For whom is it good?", or "who loses? Who wins?",or "what purpose is it for?". The artifact is encountered as "use"

• The subjective in this case is the experience of using, not the experience ofexternal, objective form. Form is an expression of the relationship betweenthe user and the artifact.

The quality perspective is one of aesthetics. Not outer beauty, but the beautyexperienced through communication based on other experiences, ideas,values, and aesthetic concepts. (Wittgenstein 1953) Comparison andresemblance are typical modes of understanding. "According to Wittgensteinthe esthetical competence is our ability to make choices." This ability to judgeis "gained through participation in different practices. The trained judgmentis based on a repertoire of exemplars, ideals from different practices” (Ehnet.al. 1995). The artifact is encountered as "experience"

The relationships between Habermas forms of rationality, Vetruvius elementsof architecture and Ehn et.al’s knowledge interests, quality perspectives andaspects of artifact design are summarized in Table 6 below.

Table 6: The relationship between Habermas’ three forms of rationality, and quality and designproperties from architecture and IT . (after Ehn et.al. 1995)

“World” Objec t ive S o c i a l Subjec t iveForms ofr a t i o n a l i t y

Objective forms Norms and practice Emotional andartistic expression

Type ofknowledgei n t e r e s t

Instrumental controlRational designTechnical functionality

UnderstandingInterpretationCommunication

EmotionalexperiencesCreativity

Qual i typ e r s p e c t i v e /language

ControlSoftware metricsQuality standards

EthicsUsefulnessUtilityPowerInterestsValues

AestheticsAppropriatenessStyle (visual)BalanceResemblance

Aspects ofdesign artifact

Structurehardware and softwarematerial or medium

Functionpractical usesymbolic use

Formexperience of use

Vetruvius Firmitas (firmness) Utilitas (commodity) Venustas (delight)Interact ions t y l e

Appropriateness:A "proper balance" between structure, function and form.

Of the three quality perspectives, the objective is well documented in thetechnologies through standards etc. The social is also well described in thesocial sciences. Through the study of e.g. organizational systems, powerstructures, etc. The subjective is the least documented, Ehn et al. say.

Interaction quality may be analyzed with participatory design methodsPostulating that interaction style is found in the proper balance of these threeforms of rationality, Ehn et.al turn to the problem of exploring the quality ofartifacts in use. I will not detail the application or procedure of each methoddescribed in the Quality in Use project. This is beside the point of this review.It is enough to see what kind of methods were used:


• Participative observation - taking part in everyday work to gain a personalfeeling for the work and atmosphere.

• Concept interviews - asking the users to express in their own words what isimportant to their experience of the system by writing it down on slips ofpaper. (Zajonc 1960)

• Semi-structured interviews - asking questions constructed with a point ofdeparture within each of the three aspects of structure, function and form.

• Role-playing - simulating sales transactions with the system users doingtheir thing, and the investigator playing the part of a customer.

• Metaphors - compare the computer system to a car and explain why aparticular car is chosen.

The methods focused on exploring the context of use rather than the isolatedexperience of the product, its functionality or its properties. Almost all themethods contributed to understanding quality in all three forms of rationality.This should testify to their ability to capture complex information, but alsoindicates that they depend on interpretation and categorization by thedesigner to explicate chosen qualities or properties.

Narrative synthesis facilitates comparison and judgment of interaction styleEhn et.al suggest using narrative as a way of modeling interaction quality fordesign purposes. The method functions just as well for a historic descriptionas for developing future scenarios. Through narrative, it is possible tocombine objective rationale, with the value judgments of the users anddescriptions of how they should experience the interaction. The narrativeshould create emotional engagement in the readers (users, product developersand management) so that it will be possible to judge and discuss the balancebetween the quality factors of the design proposal. Because such a discussionshould be based on more than simple comparison of alternative concepts theQuality in Use project has prototyped a Qualiteque. This is a publiclyaccessible database of qualitative descriptions of products in use. It is meant todocument the exemplars necessary for developing an interaction styleunderstanding, and - in time - to form the basis for analyzing trends ininteraction style. The Qualiteque is accessible on the web at:http://qualitheque.ics.lu.se/ at the time of writing.

Discussion: Style and basic design elements remain unclearTo return, finally, to Hermerén’s third question: What is the anatomy of thestyle concept. What are the components of the style, and how are they related?Ehn et.al have answered that the relationship is a matter of three differentways of thinking rationally. The three forms of rationality define knowledgeinterests and qualities and thereby, the design elements of the artifact. This fitsin well with the phenomenological perspective of Ylimaula in which style isthe "… underlying philosophy, the carrying idea that goes through the wholework of art”.Ehn et.al arrive at a new theory of interaction style based on the theory ofcommunicative action and three forms of rationality, the objective, social, andsubjective. They find a parallel in the design aspects, structure, function andform. To be applicable to contextual interaction with IT artifacts, structure,function and form are been given specific meanings in relationship tointeraction quality.

Interaction style is described as the correct balance between the qualityperspectives of the three forms of rationality. But how do we judge the correctbalance? If norms and value statements are a part of a social rationality is this


not a circular argument in which style simply reasserts itself? I will return tothis question in chapter 5.

Ehn et.al have used their theory to evaluate methods for investigating qualityissues. (Observation, interview, role playing etc.) However all the methodsprovide information for two or three forms of rationality. How does this helpus specify a design process? The designer’s intentions and the context themethods are applied in might supply an answer. We may take these methodsas a starting point for further research, but not as a prescribed procedure ofdesign. There are many other methods in use as Hede Markussen has shown.

Turning from understanding to designing, they only explore one method -written narrative. By writing a good story, contextual factors, personalrelations and traits are set up against the product from all three worlds ofrationality. Ehn et.al indicate that the right balance may be found bycomparison and sensitivity to the experience of interaction the story conveys.Nevertheless, the designer’s problem remains: I have a story the product maybe sold with, but how am I to embody these qualities in the objective product?What product properties should I specify when designing to create the rightexperiences? What remains unclear is how Ehn et.al.’s knowledge is to beused as a basis for discussions about the design process.

Answer 4 - Interaction style may be studied at differentlevels.In his fourth question, Hermerén suggests that style theory would becomeeasier to understand if we are aware of differences in level and apply differentcriteria to each level. He points out that style is used in levels from the singleartifact and individual designer or user, to the general level of social normsand standards of interpretation. With this in mind, I propose that the history ofstyle theory itself provides suggestions for three levels. The review of stylehistory in chapter 4.1 indicated that style theory has been a progression froman early system describing concrete properties, and manners of behaving orconducting oneself, via structural, deterministic and evolutionary concepts, tothe present sociological, existential, and holistic concepts of style.

1) The additive style concept is concerned with realizing style as afundamental aspect of art without attempting to make it the object of analysis.Early architectural history as well as texts on dancing and etiquetteunderstood style as mannerisms. Style was the sum of many concrete details.An additive method of style analysis might be based on the criterion ofrightness or beauty. Adding together the right properties should create a goodsolution. The designer is submerged in the style in the sense that he isunaware of, or uncritical of the premises for the style. The goal is to createthings of beauty and originality within the norms set by the style.

2) The characterizing style concept is an analytic approach that sees style as acategorizing system, or an abstraction of the direct experience of artLater architectural style history attempted to find central principles in e.g. theplan design of buildings, thus forming a comprehensive theory of style: thecharacterizing style concept. This theory included a historical analysis butfocused on individual buildings and on an evolution of forms within one fieldor type. Similarly, genres of dance and their structural rules and the aestheticprinciples of analyzing an ornament in archeology were indicators of aperiod. External influencing factors were generalized as Zeitgeist or "the spiritof the time"


3) The Socio-technical style concept sees style categories as markers for thefundamental nature of thinking in a society. Enkvist, as well as Dondis andYlimaula represent the modern linguistically inspired theory: Style isdependent on a network of interpretory norms starting within the individualand building out towards society as a whole. At the same time communicativeaction abstracts experience from individual life-worlds and provides acommon reference. Therefore, style is both individual and social, it is bothfundamental to the design process and the result of the design process.However, since style as a fundamental understanding of a phenomena isdifficult to describe, this understanding of style may only be analyzedindirectly. As Ylimaula points out (1992 p33-34), since meaning is relative,the analytic methods and theories themselves are to be considered elements ofa style of thought. The object of a phenomenological style analysis willtherefore have to be the socio-technical world in which the style manifestsitself.


4.3 Is style an operational term for interaction design?Early in this research project the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) conceptof interaction style was found interesting, because it seemed to provide a linkbetween a dynamic, aesthetic approach to interaction design and the hardwareand interface technologies that are the designers medium for creatinginteraction. Although interaction style is used as an operative concept in HCI(see page 121 onwards), it is not clearly defined. It is used to categorize themodes of interaction that are allowed by a certain interface technology. Theinterface technology is related to or based upon some hardware technology,and both of them are related to a certain paradigmatic understanding of whatinteraction between man and machine is, or should be. The categorizingcriteria are to limited to have explanatory power, and they are connected to aconcept of the “look-and-feel” of an interface that is superficiallyconnected to graphic design.An early working hypothesis was that by refining and expanding the conceptof interaction style, it could be made applicable to Solid User Interfaces(SUI’s) and to both an aesthetic and a kinesthetic treatment of interaction.Searching for an operational definition of style, in agreement with Ehn et.al(1995), I found the term to diverse and unclearly defined to provide a basisfor further research. However Hermerén (1992 pp. 192-215) has formulatedseven questions about the logic and theoretical problems of style. One ofHermerén’s questions required the explication of the philosophical basis forusing the term style. Again it is a matter of choosing perspective. I havechosen a phenomenological perspective because it allows interaction to be athing in itself that does not have to be explained in terms of a mechanical,electronic or biological information processing system. According to thisperspective, Ylimaula proposes that fundamentally, “Style is the underlyingphilosophy, the carrying idea which goes through the whole work of art. Ifphilosophy is to demanding a word, maybe sound thinking and commonsense could be used. But if the project lacks this thinking, if architecture lacksphilosophy, no style can emerge” (Ylimaula 1992 p29). Another ofHermerén’s questions was whether one can or should differentiate betweenstyles at different levels. He proposes that most of the problems of definingstyle disappear once one has agreed on a scope and resolution. For instancethe same criteria that are used to discuss the stylistic properties of a particularpiece of art in relationship to an artists total production, can and should not bedirectly applied to a discussion of a school of thought or a historic stylisticperiod.Bringing these two issues together, the following three sections report on anempirical and theoretical exploration of the operational value of theinteraction style concept. I studied three levels of thinking in terms of stylethat were identified in the historical review of style theory, reported in chapter4.1: The additive style concept, the categorizing style concept and the socio-technical style concept. For all three levels, four steps were taken to explorethe quality issues raised by the design process: First, a search for similarthoughts on interaction style were made in HCI. Second, empirical studiesexplored the operational value and results of the level of style thinking as it isapplied to interface and interaction design. Third, the level of style thinkingwas applied to proposals for interaction styles in solid user interfaces (SUI’s).


4.3 A study of the additive style concept in interactiondesignIn the early history of style-thinking it was sufficient to identify desirableattributes and combine them in the right way. What was right, was at timesmade explicit in the form of aesthetic rules and a discussion of desirableaesthetic expression, at other times left implicitly stated through the choice ofattributes, i.e. training an understanding of style by pointing out desirableproperties in a large number of examples. The additive concept of stylefocuses on the concrete artifact and on the behavior of artifacts and individualpeople. I.e. a low level style theory.

Where do we see this level of style thinking in modern HCI design? What kindof qualities are dominant?

HCI styles in light of the additive concept of style

Style guidesTo harmonize the graphics andbehaviors that must be used in theinterface, the style guides ofoperating systems, platforms orcompanies focus on an even moredetailed level. Their goal is to assurea consistent image of the product inthe public’s opinion, as well asenhancing the products usability bystandardizing it to a specifiedquality.

In Corporate identity programs, I see three majorprinciples for making style guides or DesignHandbooks as they are also called. Thecomprehensive approach tries to specify everythingconcerning the company from logos and layout ofgraphics to objects, architecture cars and the behaviorand dress of the employees. E.g. Statoil orScandinavian Airlines are companies that you meet allover Scandinavia, and can recognize by their visualappearance in all of their artifacts.

Figure 39: A Statoil service station

Figure 40: The NTNUlogo


Figure 41: Graphic elements and colors from the Lillehammer ´94 Winter Olympics

In large, diverse and decentralized organizations, a comprehensive approach isdifficult to specify and enforce. In these cases a strict identity program,specifying a few simple but effective rules may be employed. For instance, atthe Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU 1997) a fewstrict rules of graphics are common to the organization while the rest is left tothe information department and the research institutions to develop as needarises. Another way of overcoming complexity is to make a style guidelinethat focuses on the philosophy, goals and themes of the style and presents apalette of design elements. E.g. in the Lillehammer´94 Olympics (Mohus1994) all the companies, designers, suppliers etc. developed their ownproducts based on a common understanding from the style guide. In additionthere was a control function, and some of the major product groups (media,information, signs etc.) were given their own comprehensive style guides.An interface style guide may be structured along any of these generalstrategies. For example, the “Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines” byApple Computer (1992) starts by describing the basic philosophy. It thengoes on to define and describe the various parts of the Macintosh interface indetail.

The Macintosh Human Interface design principles:• Using metaphors to help learning by association• Direct manipulation to give the feeling of being in control• See and point interaction - accessible information about possibilities• Consistency from product to product and function to function• WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get)• Allowing the user , not the computer to initiate action• Giving users feed back and an understandable dialog• A systems that forgives human error to motivate users for exploring• A sense of stability by presenting clear and finite possibilities for action• Aesthetic integrity so that the look and feel of the product is consistent

internally and in accordance with the company image• No Modes that are not natural to the users world and thinking, or very

clear.

Having established these principles the guide shows how they apply to generaldesign considerations such as designing for an international market withdifferent languages, when designing for the disabled, or designing for anetworking environment.


The second part of the book defines and describes the various parts of theMacintosh interface. Behaviors, aesthetics the use of language and examplesof successful combinations are demonstrated on Interface elements such as:• Menus• Windows• Dialog Boxes• Controls• Icons• Color• Behaviors• Language

This style guide is a typical comprehensive guide. It is based on someconcrete principles and shows how they apply in as many instances aspossible. However the guide does not, and needs not, describe the rational forcreating this specific style. Reading the guidelines assumes that the worldperspective is right.

How we worked within the additive style conceptIn two projects, we approached the task of interface design with an additivelevel of style thinking: The cases of the Danfoss electronic weathercompensator, and The Crestron touch screen auditorium controller.

Electronic weather compensator - ECL 2000When Danfoss was developing a new ECL generation in the winter of ´94/´95one of the principal questions concerning MMI design was to choose betweenthree types of display. Jacob Buur and the author developed three alternativesthat were presented as paper prototypes to a product management group. Inthe following months a final design was worked out by a project group, andexternal design consultants and the product was shipped as the ECL 2000 thefollowing year.


Figure 42: Danfoss ECL 2000 All settings-buttons are behind the lid. Graphic displays withcursor key manipulation

Figure 43: The dot matrix display design idea with the lid open. An encoder wheel affords anexperience of direct manipulation

We approached the problem of developing the user interface with threerequirements:

1. A list of functions that were to be controlled2. Three specified LCD displays.3. The dimensions of the cabinet were dictated by the fact that the back of

the cabinet from the previous generation was to be reused due tomodularity.


Starting with the cheapest, and oldest technology, a two line character display,we proceeded to design for a three line display with the middle line in largercharacters, and finally a 60x100 dot matrix display.

Figure 44: The two-character display with closed semi transparent front panel

Figure 45: The three-character display with lid closed and alternative soft-key version

Figure 46: The dot-matrix display, lid closed

We proceeded designing in the same manner for all three displays:The idea generation process started with a number of independent interfaceideas and their behavior. Working down the list of functions from the mostusual, to those seldom used, we paper prototyped interaction sequences fornavigating to each function, manipulating it and returning to operating modeor continuing to the next setup-task. We "ran" the paper prototype repeatedly,testing different interaction possibilities, and searching for modes of actionthat were not catered for by the design. This resulted in a number of screens,and a specification of interface organs, their layout and behavior. Having thussketched the interaction style of the product, the screens were drawn out in


detail on the computer and the layout detailed on paper to assure that it wouldfit within the cabinet with good ergonomics.

To give the results an exterior form, an analysis of product identity was doneon existent Danfoss products. (There was no corporate identity manual forproducts) This resulted in two visual styles: A white style with sharp parallellines for home appliances and a black style with easily curved surfaces forprofessional and industrial appliances.

Figure 47: The black professional style and the white home and interior style

Style and quality issues:Interface and interaction sequences were developed first. Then ideas foridentity carrying elements of form were applied and adapted to the interface.Ideas for interaction and interface were symbiotic. They were dependent oneach other and developed in parallel or in alternation. Impulses for furtherdevelopment might come from any of the two. We did not feel the need tovisualize the product beyond arranging the layout and proportions in a usablemanner. This approach was in itself a stylistic decision. We decided thatinteraction was most important, interface layout for usability second, andproduct identity third. Formal aesthetics was not an explicit design parameterat all, although it was present as early as the layout ideas.We worked with the hidden agenda of demonstrating that the extra cost of thegraphic display was justifiable in terms of usability benefits. The reason wasthat there were many different and complex functions, needing a lot ofinformation on the screen. We felt we needed a lot of dynamic graphics tocommunicate them. It was easy to find solutions by staying within the norms,so we were quick and uncritical in our adaptation of them. E.g., +/- buttonsfor changing value, avoiding alphabetic input, and using the norm of onebutton for menu rotation one for setting a selection or the norm of functionalmodes spread out on radio buttons. But our choices were inspired by currentheuristics for good interaction design, not the norms of the time the displaytechnology originated in. This resulted in a more critical view of thecapabilities of the older displays, than of the new one. Consequently, weworked hard at realizing important properties of state of the art interfaces withthe older technologies. Although the two and three line displays were madefor showing numbers, and we felt we were forced to use this approach by thenature of the functions, we continually "pressed the envelope" trying to makethese primitive displays show graphics of e.g. the day-plans for the heatingcontrol. At the time when these interface technologies were state of the art,there was a movement away from analog displays. Precision and efficiencywere connotations of the new digital displays. But, when we designed for thesedisplays it was well known that precision was a trade-of against richer,qualitative, information and the heuristics of GUI design indicated that


explanatory texts and dynamic WYSIWYG graphics worked better in mostsituations. The two and three line displays did not have the capacity fordisplaying all the information we wanted in a direct, graphic style. Wetherefore devised a lid that folded out and changed mode on the display andbuttons. This was a state of the art SUI style: Employing manipulation of thephysical product as a part of the interface. The three-line display employedcursor buttons and an OK button. A newer style than those used on the two-line display. As an after thought, we developed an alternative soft-key solutionthat broke away from the norm of the numeric display using text in the topand bottom lines in connection with the buttons. This moved us to the limit ofthe three-line display's capacity of show graphics, we felt as we had troublerealizing all the information we wanted.

An interesting interaction style issue concerning norms and deviation fromnorms (Hermerén’s question #5 and #6) became apparent when the projectcontinued towards realization. In the graphic display solution, we had chosenan encoder wheel and a round six-position switch as the main control organs.These were costly, state of the art solutions that enhanced the directmanipulation style we tried to realize. During the implementation of thesolution, these two wheels were exchanged for simple and cheap plastic foilbuttons. Four buttons for cursor navigation, two for +/-. Could we say that thestyle of the solution was retained?

Both control organ types were applicable to direct manipulation graphics, butthey represent different borders of the norm. Cursor buttons are a backup forthe mouse as direct manipulation on the computer screen, and old fashionedin digital SUI’s, while encoder wheels were state of the art in SUI design.Although the display graphics were relatively unaltered, and the solutioncould be said to stay within the same HCI style, the quality of the interactionexperience was altered for the worse.


Crestron Auditorium control panel - touch screen based control panelIn the second project, eleven fifth term students were given a 14-dayassignment. They were to develop an interface idea for a new touch screenbased control panel to regulate lights, curtains, projectors etc. in a lecture hall.The students’ only prior experience with the field was the previous year’sintroduction to basic ergonomics. None of them had used a multimedia-authoring program before, and they were not familiar with interface design.They all had computer experience with MS-Office and DTP and graphicsapplications on MS-Windows.

Figure 48: the Crestron CT3000 - an example of a touch screen control panel

Manuals and a working product from Crestron inc. were kindly lent to us bythe Norwegian sales representative, and used as a starting point. Students wereintroduced to the concept of interaction style and were encouraged to trydirect manipulation interfaces, but also tutored on alternative WIMP styleinterfaces if they wanted to base their proposal on some other style. Theymade informal interviews with lecturers to discover problems and needs withexisting systems. Then they made simulations of their ideas in MacromediaDirector 4.0. In the next four-week period the students usability tested theirideas with the goal of identifying good and bad properties of the style theyhad worked in. They were to identify interaction qualities they would like tocombine into a final solution. The students worked in groups that had similarinteraction styles, so the differences they had to identify were on a detailedlevel.


Three solutions were based on direct manipulation or representation:Sigmund made an interface thatrepresented the lecture hall. Allobjects could be manipulated byclicking and dragging except thelectern and the table. A toolbar ofobjects that were usedintermittently was placed on theright side of the screen. Touchingan object in the toolbar wouldcause it to pop up on the table orlectern with a miniature controlpanel. The control panel could beexpanded by clicking it. An "Alllights" switch was illustrated astwo light bulbs at the top. Thegraphic style was colorful andbold - reminiscent of cartoons orcomputer games.Arild's solution was structurallysimilar to Sigmund's. But clickingon an object started an animationthat showed what was happening.Clicking the curtains would causethe curtains to close. Clicking theVCR would cause it to jump downon the lectern/table and a full sizedialog box would expand out ofit, ready for action. The "alllights" switch was a toggle buttonin a separate field at the bottom.Graphics were calmer and closerto a Windows style interface withsmall and fine-lined objects.Silje made an interface that was ahybrid between buttons and arepresentation of reality.Although the layout represented aroom, all objects were buttons andworked as buttons. Underneaththere was a strip of buttons thatopened up separate small controlpanels like the CD panel in theillustration. "All lights" and "Mic."volume were always directlyaccessible.


Three solutions were hybrids of buttons and tabs/index cardsHarald: To the left four radiobuttons switched default modesfor the most usual situations:Blackboard, Overhead projector,Video and Dias, Computerprojector. Sound was alwaysaccessible at the bottom, menu-like buttons at the top open upbutton based settings in a dialogbox in the middle.

Anne-Lise: Toggle buttons at thetop for lights and blackboardcontrol. The icons changed toindicate state. Buttons at the sidesand bottom opened index cardlike control panels with buttonsand sliders. The sizes of thebuttons on the sides were largerbecause they had higherfrequency of use.

Elizabeth divided the screen intwo levels and color-coded themin two functional groups. Thegreen group to the left was mostfrequently used. At the top, eachgroup had two rows of buttonswith functions. Pressing a buttondisplayed the appropriate controlpanel in the box below it.


Two solutions were index cards with buttons on themElin organized four majorfunction groups in tabs at the topof the screen. The index cardcontained radio buttons for eachfunction and its controls wereunder there again.

Nicolay chose to give directaccess to the functions, therebyeliminating a layer of navigation,but the resulting quantity offunctions necessitated arrangingthe index cards in two layers. Theinfrequently used Audio-Visual(AV) controls were placed in asub menu of index cards asillustrated.


Three solutions were only based on buttons...Kristine had eight color codedbuttons along the sides. Pressingthem opened a series of similarlycoded buttons for control.Pressing a button on the other sidewould cause the buttonspreviously occupying the space todisappear.

Morten displayed two screens ofbuttons. The one for multimediahidden behind the primary screen.Sound effects and animations inthe icons indicated that a buttonhad been activated.

Per Christian organized hisfunctions under four buttons on amain screen. The multimedia sub-screen is illustrated here. "Alllights" was accessible from all sub-screens. Associated functions wereaccessible, like direct access tolight and sound from multimedia,in stead of going via the mainmenu.


Style and quality issuesNone of the students used paper prototyping though this was suggested. Halfof them started simulating interface elements based on what behaviors theycould realize in Director. The other half started by sketching ideas for screengraphics based on some principal idea, and created behaviors and icons asthey went along. In both cases the design was developed by followingimaginary working procedures down through a menu hierarchy that becameapparent as the need arose and then going back up to the top to start a newprocedure.Three interaction styles were identified by the students during the work:Direct manipulation, button based and menu / index card based. Most of thesolutions mixed interaction styles but had one style as the dominant theme.Due to their focus on one style, it was difficult for the students to see howmuch the other interaction styles influenced their solution. The other styleswere just adopted as practical solutions to problems.It was also observed that it was difficult for the students to identify andevaluate interaction style related properties of the interface. None of the fourgroups reached any conclusions about interaction quality from the usabilitytests. Only detail problems with the individual interfaces, and similaritiesbetween problems were noted.

Proposals for SUI stylesHow could we describe an additive style of Solid User Interfaces? Hermerén'squestion number three, about the anatomy of the style concept is central to ananalysis of the additive level of style thinking. For describing a SUI style, itmay be formulated like this:1) What is the artifact? What are its relevant properties?2) How do the properties relate? What is the complex of relationships?3) How often do the properties occur?4) How do we say that the properties characterize the artifact? What is meantby characterizing?

1) If SUI styles were based on hardware technologies similar to Nielsen’s HCIstyles in the beginning of this section, we could follow the development ofhardware through the last centuries. The technologies would be the artifacts ofinterest. The properties we are looking for would be the interface organstypical of this technology.2) The complex of relationships to other styles and within the style would bethat the interface organs do not occur, or have little significance to the use ofprevious technologies.3) The frequency of occural and the significance of the interface organqualify it as indicator of an interaction style.4) How do we say that interface organs characterize the technologies? - By themode of action they allow, and thereby the manual operations the humanmust use.

Using these descriptive rules, a proposal for styles is presented in Table 7.The technology is a movement from simple mechanisms via electrical devicesto digital electronics. By defining the artifacts in this way, the number ofcriteria is kept low. Mechatronics for instance, could be seen as a newtechnology, however I choose to see it as a combination of existingtechnologies. It combines existing interface technologies, but does notcontribute with anything completely new.


Table 7: A proposal for interaction styles in solid user interfaces. The style of interacting isderived from interface organs that are characteristic of a technology

Technologies andtypical artifacts

Characteristic properties o finterface organs

Interaction s t y l edescribed a smovement of limbs

Hand tools:Ax, shovel, plow,clay turning wheel,spinning wheel.

Handgrip andHandles

Whole body:Hitting, Dragging,Pushing, Winding.

Using all the sensestogether for perceivingfeedback

Mechanisms:Steam engineMechanical clockLathe

ValveLeverWinding key or wheelGaugesClock facesFluid level tubes

Hand and arm:Turning, Pulling/Pushing

Using isolated senses forperceiving feedback, onlyhearing, sight, temperatureetc.

Electrical/Tube:RadioToasterWashing machine

Button, Switch, Radio buttonsMechanical dials withpotentiometer/condenserAnalog instruments

Finger tip:PushToggleTurningTuning

Using sight, hearing, andfeeling.Reading needle on dial

Transistor electronicsFM pocket radioVCR

Electronic, digital displays Finger tip:Setting valuesSwitching modes

Using sight and hearingDigital electronics:ComputerMobile phone

Buttons, Toggle buttons, Switches,Encoder wheelsGraphic displays of limited resolution

HCI styles

Using sight

From the list we can see that many of the interaction styles are based on thesame movements, but that the quality difference lies in the amount of forcethat is applied, and the body parts involved in the interaction. There is aprogressive reduction of the force requirement and in the number of sensesinvolved in perceiving planned feedback. With the introduction of transistorelectronics, there is a change of cognitive style from continuos, analogfeedback/control loop to anticipation, waiting, and response. With theintroduction of GUI's the finger movements on the mouse are detached fromthe actual interaction. The interaction becomes a virtual reality on the screen.Interface organs are still visually the same but they have become unfeelable,based entirely on kinesthetic thinking.In conclusion, the evolution of SUI styles may bee understood as aprogression of kinesthetic experiences towards less physical effort, but highermental effort. The conceptual models of interaction and feedback are stillphysical, indicating the primacy of the mode of kinesthetic thinking aboutinteraction.


Results of studying the additive style conceptIn the Danfoss ECL project we only discussed a digital electronic SUI style ata level of resolution appropriate for the task at hand. We did not search forprinciples or general problem descriptions, but rather took the solution thatseemed best when faced with each design obstacle. We applied simpleheuristics and trusted our experience with similar interfaces to verify thesolutions for us. We worked within a limited space of ideas, inspired byconventions and current value systems.

The results of the Crestron project showed that the students developedinterfaces, behavior and graphics that were variations on business or gamingstyle graphics. They lacked a repertoire of exemplars for designing in anyspecific style and were unfamiliar with the norms. The results the studentsproduced show that many of them strayed from conventions without clearintent, and without managing to create well balanced totalities.

Tacit knowledge of norms is essentialThe number of possible characteristics that may be identified in a product oran interaction creates a problem of limitation. Which characteristics should adesigner focus on? Awareness of norms is essential to a design process guidedby style. Working within a style keeps complexity low because it limits thenumber of meaningful characteristics. In the Additive style of thinkingawareness of norms is achieved by building a foundation of prior experiencesand a repertoire of examples of good practice. Norms as such, need thereforenot be an explicit design issue.

Exploring limits is importantSuccessful deviation from a norm might, in time, create a new norm.Consequently, the choice of dominant characteristic is central to the additivelevel of style thinking. If we say something is important, then we have defineda style. If our results have originality and affective power, then others will takeheed and adopt our characteristic. Without other criteria, the older styles ofinteraction will be compared based on the current paradigm of technologyand heuristics, thereby naturally seeming weaker. This evolutionarydevelopment of interaction style was apparent in the process of definingnorms and deviation from norms in the Danfoss project. For instance, the lossof encoder wheels in the Danfoss ECL2000. Without a strong basis for takingnew directions, it was a matter of trying to sense the limit of acceptability for achange of style. So experience with the expressive possibilities of form andbehavior is necessary, as the Crestron project clearly showed.

Questioning the basis for knowledge is unimportantCharacterizing artifacts, their properties and relationships makes a systematicsearch for styles that “work” possible. But what makes them work is notapparent. In the reported cases we avoided the problem by relying onheuristics for explaining our interaction choices, and relying on a visualvocabulary of acceptable forms for our form giving decisions. To questionthe principles behind the heuristics is not relevant to this approach. Thedesigner does not have any foundation for proposing a new style exceptexploring the limits of the acceptable.


4.4 A study of the categorizing style concept ininteraction designAround 1900, the idea developed that a style was born of previous styles. Byobserving the forms resulting from different principles of architecture andunderstanding how our predecessors arrived at them, it should be possible tounderstand a style and extrapolate it towards the future. This is an example ofa middle level of style thinking. A level at which style is discussed ascausalities in design thinking. The underlying principles in a design, and theimpulses leading to changes in the principles are important to such anunderstanding. Therefore the act of searching for and categorizing principlesis central at this level.

HCI styles in light of the categorizing concept of styleThe main stream of HCI research is carried out with this level of stylethinking. The natural science basis for computer science and engineeringdesign both focus on the discovery of basic principles and causalrelationships.

Technological generations and interface paradigmsThe concept of interaction style used by Schneiderman (1991), Nielsen(1993), Preece et.al (1995) and many others originates in a historic review ofthe technological generations of computers. Nielsen (p49) says that ageneration may be defined as the period between the points when earlyadopters begin using the technology, and the time when they start using thenext technology. He summarizes the generations of technologies and userinterfaces so far in Table 8


Table 8 Generations of computer technology (from Nielsen, 1993)

Gene-ration

Hardwaretechnology

Operatingmode

Program-minglanguage

Terminaltechnology

User types Advert-izingimage

Userinterfaceparadigm

0Prehistoryuntil 1945

Mechanical/Electromechanical(BabbageZuse Z3)

Not reallybeing usedexcept forcalculations

Movingcablesaround

Readingblinkinglights andpunch cards

Theinventorsthemselves

None(computers had notleft the labyet)

None(directhands-onaccess tothehardwareonly )

1Pioneer1945-55

Vacuumtubes, hugemachines,short meantime betweenfailure

One user at atime “owns”machine, butonly for alimited time

Machinelanguage001100111101

TTY,typewriter.Only used incomputercenter

Experts,pioneers

Computerascalculator

BatchProgram-ming

2Historical1955-65

Transistors;more reliableComputersstart seeinguse outsidethe lab

Batch(centralizedcomputer astemple, notaccesseddirectly)

AssemblerADD A,B

Line-orientedterminals(glass-TTY)

Technocratsprofessionalcomputerusers

Computerasinformationprocessor

CommandLanguages

3Traditional1965-80

Integratedcircuits;Businessescan costjustify buyingcomputersfor the firsttime

Time-sharing(onlinetransactionprocessingsystems)

High levellanguages,Fortran,Pascal, Cif expense> incomethen....

Full-screenterminals,alphanumeric charactersonly. Remoteaccesscommon

Specializedgroupswithoutcomputerknowledge(e.g. banktellers)

Mechanization ofwhitecollarlabor

Full screenstrictlyhierarchical menusand formfill-in

4Modern1980-90

VSLI;Individualsbuy theirown personalcomputer

Single userpersonalcomputers

Problemorientedlanguages,spreadsheet

Graphicaldisplays.Desktopworkstations,heavyportables

Businessprofes-sionals,hobbyists

Personalproduct-ivity(computeras tool)

WIMP(Windows,Icons,Menus,Pointingdevice)

5Future1995 -?

Wafer-scaleintegrationIndividualscan buymany

Networkedsingle userandembeddedsystems

Non-imperativepossiblygraphical

“Dynabook”multimediaI/O, easilyportable,with cellularmodem

Everybody Computerasappliance

Noncommand-basedinterfaces

As new technology is introduced, the older interface technologies andinteraction styles are used in those instances where they fulfill a need betterthan the new technology, or where the new technology does not address thatkind of functionality. This results in a list of interaction styles where severalinterface technologies apply to the same style.


Table 9 Interaction styles of HCI. WIMP means Windows Icon, Menu, Pointer (from Nielsen,1993)

Interact ions t y l e

Mainly used in: Main characteristics

Batch Batch processing,E-mail servers

Does not require user intervention,works even when user and computerare in different place and time

Question - answer Line oriented Computer controls the user, so suitedfor casual use

CommandLanguage

Line oriented Easy to edit and reuse commandhistory.A powerful language can support verycomplex operations.

Function keys Full screen WIMP Fast entry of a few standardcommands, but limited flexibility

Form fill-in Full screen WIMP Many fields can be seen and edited atonce

Menus Full screen WIMP, telephonebased interfaces

Frees the user from rememberingoptions, at cost of potentially beingslow or having confusing hierarchy.

Directmanipulation

WIMP, virtual reality User in control. Enables metaphorsfrom the real world. Good for graphics

Non-command Future systems, Virtual Reality The user is freed to concentrate on thedomain and need not control thecomputer. Computer monitors usersand interprets their actions, so suitedfor cases where misinterpretations areunlikely or without seriousconsequences.

Natural language Future systems Ideally, allows unconstrained input tohandle frequently changing problems.

Neither Nielsen, nor Preece et.al give comprehensive accounts of why a stylehas evolved. Each style is presented as the result of a paradigmaticunderstanding of the computer’s relationship to its users and it’s tasks. Thiscitation from Preece et.al (1995 p262) is characteristic: “Consider for examplethe early command-driven applications and form fill-inn applications. Theymatched the user and the task requirements at the time relatively well. Theearly command driven applications tended to be used by expert users or atleast technical knowledgeable people who were not afraid of computers andcould be expected to overcome any obstacles by sheer perseverance. Thedevelopment of the form fill-in mode of interaction was aimed at a completelydifferent set of users and tasks. This type of interface was designed for clericalworkers who had little, if any experience with computers, to enable them tocarry out repetitive clerical data collection tasks. These interfaces mimickedpaper forms, with the aim of retaining as far as possible the characteristics ofentering data that are part of the manual task, while benefiting from the dataprocessing power of a computer system. In addition, the two kinds of interfacewere designed with specific task characteristics in mind. The command-drivenform was general and could be used for a variety of different applications,whereas the form fill-in mode was designed for a specific type of task.”


Why is it that a computer expert is expected to “overcome any obstacles bysheer perseverance” while a clerk is;” to carry out repetitive clerical datacollection tasks” and can not be expected to learn anything about computers?Is there a causal relationship between technology, task and interaction style?Or are we dealing with designers biased view of the product and it's users?Although these interaction styles are built on historical analysis, they reflectthe popular views of their time. Maybe it is our time's need to emphasize usercentered design that makes a few usability related performance issues thedominant characteristic of each style while user types are stereotyped and setinto a causal relationship with the technology?

Properties of interaction

Figure 49: Sketch for a complete map of interaction design degrees of freedom (from HedeMarkussen 1995).

Hede Markussen describes sixteen major fields of research by categorizingthem in relationship to five dimensions of interaction.1. The product dimension - Is the product or technical system as described

in the theory of technical systems, by e.g. degrees of freedom. The userinterface is a part of this product description.

2. The dimension of user physiology - Is the description of physiologicalattributes such as anthropometry, reach and movement, strength andfatigue.


3. The activity dimension - Describes the work processes that the user andproduct perform together. The activity is described by the results of theactivity, and by the life cycle phases, the activity passes through.

4. The dimension of the users intellect - Is the description of psychologicalattributes of the user such as knowledge, experience, personal bias,cultural background etc.

5. The fifth and last concurrent dimension is the environment - This meansnot only the physical environment of climate, locale and so on, but alsothe social and cultural context.

Each of the sixteen research fields has its own perspective on interaction, itsown priority for the future of the field and its own causalities and models. Byfocusing on different aspects of interaction, the schools represent differentways of describing its basic principles. Their style of thinking is different.12

Hede Markussen proposes eight aspects of interaction and a hierarchiccausality within each of them, from abstract and general principles to concreteand detailed properties.

The eight aspects are the four first dimensions plus secondary aspects derivedfrom the relationship between neighboring dimensions:The ergonomic aspect relates to both the physical and the communicativeaspects of the interface between human and product at the level ofinput/output and the problem of function allocation

The plastic aspect includes all that has to do with the user's movements, this isalso traditionally ergonomics, but Hede Markussen wants to isolate theproduct from the action.

The cognitive aspect includes parameters such as mental strategies, motivation,learning, experience, mental models, recognition etc. Parameters of thought inrelation to the activity

The dialog aspect is found between the user's intellect and the product. Unlikethe ergonomic aspect, this aspect has to do with the product and the user'sability to "understand" each other. The user's understanding is related toparameters such as perception, association, gestalt, readability, language,mediation, technical insight etc. While the product registers the users inputthrough interface components. In the dialog perspective, we also findallocation of information carrying functions such as "Who should rememberthis number?"

How we worked with this style conceptIn the Man Machine Interaction course at the Department of Product DesignEngineering, the assignments for the fall of 1997 were to design a proposalfor a Digital Audio Broadcast (DAB) radio. The students were asked toanalyze one of the historic generations of radios presented to them (fromPedersen 1997) and identify some good and some bad interaction qualities.

12 Hede Markussen (1995 p23) remarks that the kind of description or map he has made israre in HCI. Existing schools of interaction design do not exploit or integrate multipleperspectives of interaction. I take this as an indicator that they are not attempting a high-level style discussion. They are not questioning the nature of the Zeitgeist they springfrom, but simply trying to generalize the practical problems that arise as the fieldadvances and evolves.


They were to realize the good qualities in their new DAB radio design, andavoid building in the bad ones.

The tube radio was the type most students chose to base their analysis on. Thethree sub-types were the half round, characterized by a half round dial orspeaker with buttons underneath, the rectangular, characterized by ahorizontal frequency dial with radio buttons underneath and turning knobsarranged symmetrically at each side and one encased in a sideboard or drinkscabinet. The interface of this type was usually of the same type as one of theother two sub-types. For the purposes of this study there seems no need todifferentiate between sub-types. What is of interest is how the students realizedthe description and transfer of elements of the style they identified, to a newsolution.

Figure 50: Pictures of tube radio types from Pedersen (1997)

Some of the positive properties the students focused on in the tube radio were:• Big heavy knobs affording a reliable, solid feeling, and positive action and

feedback.• A dial that showed the whole world affording a sense of wonder at the

medium of radio and the size and diversity of the world of radio programs• Direct response and simple, unintimidating operation• A general feeling of solidity strength and power.

The realization of these qualities in the students’ redesign varied a lot as thefollowing descriptions indicate:

Eivind’s glass monolith focused allinteraction on one big knob of glass situatedon a glass plate without a frame. Behind theglass there was a LCD display. The knob wasused as a joystick, a dial and a button. Asegment of a landscape of functions wasvisible in the display and the operator couldmove around by pushing the knob indifferent directions, or manipulate the objectsthat appeared by turning and pressing theknob. Ambient sounds helped the userunderstand the radio. E.g. when turning iton, a growing electric hum - like a powerstation would indicate that the radio wasstarting, and would give an indication ofvolume before the radio program appearedin the speaker.


Øyvind´s sound picture was composed of twoparts that might be components of a stereosystem. A picture on the wall, by the speakersdisplayed information and graphics relevantto the program being received, while a handheld, pen based, remote control, much like aPDA, was used for navigating in the interface,choosing programs, regulating sound and soon. The solidity of the tube radio wascaptured in the size and visual importance ofthe product in the home of the user. Thedirectness and simplicity of the older modelwas recreated by using a simple pen basedinterface. The worldview afforded by thepredecessors tuning dials was present in theform of a cylindrical wheel at the end of theremote control. Turning the cylinder scrolledthe screen beside it.

Hildegunn reasoned that older users whowere unfamiliar with computer styleinterfaces, and younger users who had theradio on e.g. the kitchen table were onlyinterested in listening to the same fewchannels every day at the same time. Theseusers would judge the program type andcontents and switch between well-knownalternatives. They needed direct access andan automatically adaptive interface.The simplicity of the tube radio supportedthis style of interaction. To realize the stylein the new DAB radio she developed twininterfaces. The primary interface supportedthe qualitative approach to listening, while asecond interface, hidden in a drawer in thefront supported a modern touch screen based

navigation in a menu hierarchy.The primary interface consisted of an integrated power and volume knob, a"tuning" knob and six radio buttons. The "tuning" knob switched between thelatest used programs in small steps, that allowed a reasonably comprehensivechoice, but not so much as to be confusing. The radio buttons switchedbetween program types like news, music, sports, traffic radio, etc. The typeswere displayed in a small LCD screen above the buttons. Each button changedthe mode of the "tuning" knob to choose between the latest programs in therelevant group.When the secondary interface drawer was pressed the drawer would pop outand programming the choice of radio button categories and other advancedfeatures would be accessible.


Synne adopted the principle form and layoutof a tube radio, in a modern vocabulary ofmaterials, color and detail form. The stationdial was exchanged for a vertically scrollingLCD screen that was large enough to show awealth of information similar to the old dial.Radio buttons at the bottom switchedbetween channels and program themes in thedisplay.

Halvard decided that the best way ofpreserving the old interaction style was bykeeping the old appearance and interfacelayout unaltered. He only exchanged the dialfor a LCD screen. Inspired by the fact thatradio buttons in GUI's are adoptions of theradio buttons of this era he reverse-engineered them. The functions of thephysical radio buttons became, cut, copy andpaste buttons in addition to some buttons forchoosing categories of radio programs. The

tuning dial "tuned" in by selecting and highlighting a station, program groupetc. These selections could be copied and pasted to a personalized "tuningscale" of programs

Style and quality issuesBy taking different principle views of the way interaction qualities should bereinterpreted for the near future, the students arrived at a variety of radicallydifferent solutions. E.g.: Eivind and Øyvind choose to interpret the simplesolidity of the earlier style in terms of modernistic minimalism, while Synne,Hildegunn and Halvard chose differing degrees of retrospective styling ofboth appearance and interaction.The students developed the behavior of their radios in different directions inresponse to differing evaluations of the importance of each quality. Principlesthat were used were:• Main form and layout (Hallvard & Synne & Hildegunn)• The experience of sound and movement quality (Eivind)• Mental models and needs of the user (Hildegunn)• Interface behavior (Halvard & Hildegunn)• Visual importance (Øyvind)• Visual styles of: Modern minimalism (Eivind, Øyvind), Retrospection

(Hallvard, Hildegunn) Historic eclecticism (Synne)

The reason the students took so readily to a principle approach for designsynthesis could be that they had prior training in thinking about principlestructures etc. the way this concept is applied by Tjalve (1976)The students work proceeded by abstracting the experience and making it aprinciple defined by a few key design properties. When looking for solutionsthey explored the whole complex of properties, functions and interactionssurrounding the principle they had defined. E.g., the concept of “a landscapeof the world" in the dial was realized with different spatial and navigationalmetaphors and interface organs:


Hallvard moved a pointer on a LCD by rotating awheel, the way it was done in the original.

Synne scrolled vertically in a LCD by rotating asimilar wheel. Combining the old interaction withthe electronic display and computer scrollconvention of moving up and down.

Øyvind rotated a cylinder with a “belt” ofscreen images fastened to it. The screen wassensitive to a pen for writing and manipulatingobjects

Eivind "moved the screen" like a window over alarger imaginary area

Hildegunn turned a wheel to move about in sixdifferent imaginary spaces of sounds. She wasthe only one who relied on the users mentalmodel of a space of programs, because she hadthe backup of a second WIMP style touch screeninterface hidden in a drawer, for advanced users.

Although this was not a formal design approach of the waterfall- / designdegrees of freedom- model, starting with analysis and the definition ofguiding principles, it did however, show that by abstracting the problem, newsolutions contained a wider variety of ideas than the touch screen exercise ofthe previous year.

In the usability tests the students fell back to a detailed discussion ofproperties and functionality. Even an additive style discussion was missing.The students were unable to verify their solutions at any level of stylethinking. This may be due to using paper prototypes in stead of computersimulations, so that most nuances of interaction quality were lost. They wereleft only with data on the users understanding of icons, layout, navigation andfunctionality. It could also be that the task was unreasonably advanced underthe circumstances because a methodology for verification was missing. Tolook for principles it would be necessary to have a clear idea of what aninteraction principle could be. We did not have any such description.

Proposal for SUI stylesThe principles of an interaction style are not about mechanical, electronic, orcomputer technologies. Rather, technological changes influence our


possibilities for realizing interaction principles in new situations. When a newtechnology comes along it is the focus of users intentions and the users modeof expression that changes. Could basic interaction experiences be the SUIstyles for this level of style thinking?

Table 10

S t y l e Descr ip t ion ExamplesB r i n g i n gt o g e t h e r

Either bringing thefunctional surfaces of thetechnical system to bearon the operand, oropposite.

• Tomra bottle recycling machine - simply putthe bottle in the machine and wait for all thetime-outs and the machine will do the joband return your value ticket

• Bring together match and striking face ofmatchbox. - Bring together flame andcandlewick.

C h a n g i n gmechanism

Controlling machine bychanging the mechanismor by rebuilding someparts of the mechanism.

• Router - changing the bit and regulating theguide rails to get different cuts.

• Wood plane - regulating depth of blade andchip breaker

• Sailboat rig - setting sails and regulatingthem to change the conversion of airflow toboat motion.

• Lid of a jar - screw on lid to make the jarairtight.

• VingCard lock - insert plastic card to makelock open

S e t t i n gva lue

Setting values or statesis a way of defining howthe machine will begoing to work in thefuture,

• Phone numbers are punched first to make aconnection to speak to someone.

• On/off switch to make, heat or light or soundetc.

• Thermostat set temperature to make the roomheat up to that level.

• Bow and arrow - Pull the bow to increasemotion energy in the arrow when it is letloose

• Code lockProport iona lc o n t r o l

A prosthesis orproportional control inreal time.

• Car or plane - press the throttle or pull thesteering wheel/yoke to make the vehiclerespond proportionally

• Press an awl against a piece of wood and youwill have a hole proportional to how hardyou press

• Scissors - open to insert the paper to thedesired depth, close to cut the desired amount

• Volume dial - turn to increase the volume

By searching for common denominators in as wide a variety of interfaceorgans as I could think of, these interaction styles were found by falsification:If I found an interface organ that did not naturally fit into the categories Ihad, the categories needed expansion or redefinition.Criteria for the common denominators were that they be characteristics of amental model of the interface, that certain motoric or cognitive abilities wereneeded or that a characteristic feeling arises from interacting with theinterface.


Using a stick to loosen a rockslide or throwing a rock with a sling requiresknowledge about what values to introduce to set things in motion for"automatically" producing the effect. There will be a feeling of calculationand anticipation, maybe of surprise, at the result. Fastening a rock to a stickmeans changing the mechanism to provide different interaction possibilities.The impact force is increased, but may still be regulated for each blow. Thesegeneric interaction styles may be found in primitive tools, or in state-of-the-art technology like computer mediated fly by wire systems in aircraft. DavidPye (1988) suggests that the evolution of craftsmanship is a movement fromthe craftsmanship of risk, to the craftsmanship of certainty, that thedevelopment of production technology is about removing risk caused bydependency on human motoric abilities, ability to concentrate etc. I also seedeskilling and automation as signs of this process. By introducing newtechnology, the border to the craftsmanship of risk is moved, but as long aspeople are involved it will still be present because the same interaction styleswill be used by all people. A dialog box is a way of setting values. Directmanipulation on the computer screen is proportional control. Drag and Dropis bringing together. There does not seem to be a relevant connection betweentechnological paradigms and interaction styles with this reasoning. These fourmodes of interaction require the same mental models, cognitive and motoriccapabilities, and afford the same interaction experiences. They are so basicthat we meet them in everything we do, which is also their problem. It maymean that they are too basic to be of operational value.To become operational it seems necessary to formulate more specificprinciples based on some common consensus about what is important aboutSUI's at present and in current contexts of use. Like the schools of HCI thatHede Markussen mapped, these principles will be specific to some categoriesof products and applications. For instance, Black & Buur do this in "GUI'sand SUI's more of the same or something different" (1995) when they listsome design opportunities of SUI's:• SUI's can exploit the full capabilities of the hand and fingers.• SUI's can be adapted ergonomically to human abilities.• SUI's can use product semantics, graphics and layout to support functional

understanding.• SUI's can employ buttons

under a flexible skin, thatappear at need to simplifymodal interactions

• SUI's can combine lookand feel of interface andhardware to promoteproduct or corporateidentity.

The list above explicates somecharacteristics that areimportant within a limitedscope of products, at a certaintime, with a certain state ofknowledge.Similarly, thinking aboutprinciple interactions anddifferent ways of embodyingthem is one of the ideasbehind the Tangible Bits (Ishii

Figure 51: Lisa Crohn’s “Phone-book”, a studioproject from The Cranbrook Academy. Telephone,

answering machine, and other functional modes changeas the pages are flipped.


& Ulmer 1997) of MIT’s Tangible Media Group. By abstracting theprinciples of GUI interaction as metaphors, the group found real worldobjects with similar characteristics and made them interactive.

Figure 52: The metaDESK design approach and physical icons or phicons (Ishii & Ulmer 1997)

In both these cases the authors started with a specific problem in a specificcontext. Then they extracted characteristics and principles of design suited tohandling the characteristics. In effect they defined the anatomy of a style, inorder to create a new interaction styles.


Results of studying the categorizing style concept

Interaction principles may be experiencesThis study of the categorizing style of thinking indicates that interactionprinciples might be found in the experiences different types of interfaceorgans give their users and in the scope and opportunities for action thatdifferent technologies afford. After describing an experience it is shown thatit is possible to develop the experience in different directions using differentcombinations of interface organs.

Hede Markussen similarly reports on introducing the concept of interactionprinciples in a student design project. His observations also indicate that theconcept of interaction principles is operational. But we arrive at differentproposals about the nature of interaction principles. I believe this to be theresult of different theoretical approaches. His proposal is based on adescription of design degrees of freedom for interaction. He suggests thatinteraction principles could comprise attributes such as; functions, logic,language, values, problem solutions, mental strategies, memory and fatigue.(1995 pp117-121). Hede Markussen describes interaction as the result ofproperties of the product, the activity and the users mental and physicaldisposition, in other words the objective and mechanistic attributes ofinteraction. On the other hand, I assume that interaction styles are the result ofuser experiences with interfaces in a context of use because these experiencesare more fundamental than object properties, so my interaction principles areprinciples of expression of interaction experiences.

Applying principle without sensitivity detailing produces incomplete designsNo matter what principles are employed, the act of abstracting them fromactual interaction, makes the designer loose touch with the affective power ofthe totality. Without having trained a sensibility to the experience throughdirect contact, a categorizing style of thinking may lead to principles beingembodied in arbitrary forms, or in forms that are not given the necessarydetailing to appear complete and well thought out to the user. This wasapparent in many of the students design proposals, either in the visual or theinteractive part of their product proposals, depending on what principlesdominated their design process.


4.5 A study of the socio-technical style concept ininteraction designDuring this century, it has become clear that style must be interpreted withinthe framework of its time of origin. After 1945 the growing popularity of artsociology, the social history of art and art psychology has led to a refinementof this perspective.

HCI styles in light of the socio-technical concept ofstyle

The fashions of Information Technology influence value judgmentsIn a 15th anniversary issue of “Computer World Norge”, technical editorAlhert Hysing presents a theory about the factors that influence the decisionsof IT professionals. Four factors are mentioned:

1) Influence: Because of the speed with which IT develops, a large portion ofIT professionals are to some degree autodidact. This is a painful process:.That which a professional has fought to learn the hard way, contributesheavily to his conceptions of what is right. Influence of professionals takesplace from the age of 15 to 25 - first through computer games until the ageof 20, then through colleges and universities.After approx. 30 years of age a professional starts influencing companypolicy based on their prior experience. First, in technical positions, later atages 35 to 50 in administrative positions.

2) IT-“religions:” Faith does not decide IT strategy but “religions” are dooropeners for IT decisions. They strengthen any argument for a solution thatcontains them. Hysing lists the following “religions” or truths:• Security - e.g. Intel or Microsoft• Nationality• Likes the look of it• “Drug” - e.g. 64 bit processors• UNIX• Network - e.g. Gigabit• Ethernet• Window• Tools like Visual C++• Objects• Client/server• Multimedia• NT• Internet• Java• Open structure• Gadgets


3) Technology introductions: Although technology does not have an instantimpact in mainstream markets, the introduction of new technology sets theagenda for what are the important functions of the future. E.g. COBOL wason the market in 1960 but became important after 1965. UNIX was made in1969 but became important to businesses in the end of the eighties.

Table 11: IT is understood at later dates than it is introduced. This table suggests when thetechnology became important. (Hysing 1998)

Year T e c h n o l o g y1965 COBOL1967 Mainframe, mini1970 Database (hierarchic, network)1975 Terminal (syncron, asyncron)1980 Applications based on terminals1981 the Spreadsheet1982 Computer modeling, 4GL1983 PC1984 Workstation, Macintosh1985 Word-processing1986 Relational databases1987 i386, CAD, DTP, Laser printer1988 UNIX1989 Case1990 Window1991 Client/server, netware1992 Laptop PC, Visual Basic1993 Groupware, Multimedia, Network administration1994 Powerbuilder, Objects1995 Internet/Web, Thick clients, MS Office1996 Java1997 NT, 64bit, ISDN1998 Computer warehouses, Web-TV

4) Fashion Waves: IT architecture has proceeded in waves of approximatelyseven years duration. The influence of the wave lasts longer, but this is thetime period in which a wave is the highest fashion. Hysing observes thatprofessionals have trouble grasping the first wave following the one they havebased their experience on. But the next wave does not have the sameantagonistic relationship to their knowledge, and will be accepted more easily.

Table 12: Fashion waves in IT last for approx. seven years (Hysing 1998)

A g e Wave1976 - 1983 Mainframe1983 - 1990 Mini machine1990 - 1997 UNIX1997 - 2004 PC/NT2004 - 2011 Internet/WebComputer


Hysing concludes that for a practicing professional, experience is dangerousbecause it hinders the application of new, more efficient technologies and thevalue judgments they build on. He cites Allan Kay as saying that IT should bede-learned every seven years. Hysing also recommends conscious and carefuldifferentiation between experience and practical knowledge when teams orconsultants are chosen. His point is that IT professionals will have a set ofvalues that are delayed according to their age and their first meetings with thetechnology.

Ergonomics shows the historic evolution of the value and role of man intechnical systemsThe history of ergonomics, as described by Salvendy (1987) and Sanders &McCormick (1993) may be read as an evolution of the worth and importanceof humans in man machine systems. In the beginning ergonomics had amechanistic, physiological perspective in which the human was seen as part ofthe machine system. The goals were efficient labor and higher output byselection and training of the right personnel. As it became apparent thattechnology was surpassing the ability any human, however correctly trained,this evolved into a broader systems perspective, in which the human elementof the system was evaluated on its own premises for instance in functionallocation. Design focused more on overcoming human limitations bycreating ideal loads, correct working postures etc. Where humans were seen asinferior, or indeed at any other opportunity, there was a drive to automatetasks that were problematic. During the last decades a psycho-socialperspective grew in importance. One of the driving forces was the successfulintroduction if IT and automation. Fear of being replaced by a machine orbeing deskilled by automation was one of the catalysts of e.g. theparticipatory design movement in Scandinavian HCI, and the focus onpsycho-social working environments in ergonomics.

Figure 53: Different perspectives of a work system through the eyes of a researcher and the

users of the system. By understanding the users perspective new meaning and value isdescribed. (Schuler & Namioka 1993))


Man’s importance in system designOn concluding his survey of HCI schools, Tom Hede Markussen points outthat the techniques of user involvement employed by the different schoolsdescribe a scale from user centered design to systems oriented design.

None

Communication, consultation and training

User representatives

Participative design

Users design, experts advise

System centered design

User centered design

Figure 54: Degrees of involving the user in design work (Damodaran 1983)

Like the evolution of the ergonomics view of man, these degrees of userinvolvement may be traced back to different stages in the history of HCI (seeNielsen’s history of HCI styles on page A122, Table 8) Also, they are allrepresented today, in different schools of HCI because they create a focus onthe aspects of interest in each field. Hede Markussen concludes that all havetheir individual strengths and may be employed in a comprehensive decisiontool for design. He lists six techniques of user contact and places four designapproaches in relationship to them.

Figure 55: Six techniques of user contact and the degree of user involvement (Hede Markussen1995)

Maaß & Oberquelle (1992) also discuss multiple approaches to HCI design.They use the notion of perspective which is different from paradigms, as usedby e.g. Nielsen, because paradigms are exclusive within a group or scientificfield, while perspectives may be changed, and may co-exist as alternativemetaphorical understandings of the design object. They point out a numberof perspectives that set the priorities in HCI design, and show how they relateto different metaphorical understandings of systems in use. The list of fiveperspectives are in historical order of appearance:


1. Machine perspective: seeing the computer as a machine the user will beexpected to deal with given properties and a defined input and outputbehavior. This is the post war understanding of man machine systems inergonomics. Understanding the computer as a machine is the basis ofprogrammers’ professional language. Designers will focus onfunctionality, errors and performance, the human must do those tasks thatcan not yet be automated.

2. System perspective: the computer is a information storage and processingdevice that is part of larger information and communication structures.Humans are seen as having basically the same properties as the automatedsystems: they can deal with certain data sets in a certain manner.Metaphorical concepts are fundamental to computers, but become moreobvious when trying to describe users in the same terms; e.g. storage,processors, capacity, cycle-time. Designers will focus of how to speed upcommunication and processing.

3. Communication perspective: Computers and humans act as parties in acommunication process. There are two further variant of this perspective,What Kammersgaard (1985) calls the dialog partner perspective, based onthe idea that the computer is understood as a simulation or AI that shouldreact as humanly as possible. Most metaphors are based on this variant.The computer is endowed with human personality traits such as; obedientclerk, helpful assistant or intelligent expert. The other variant is the formalcommunication perspective which acknowledges the fundamentaldifferences between man and computer and sees the computers reactionsas planed by designers, The communication is actually between designerand user via storage as formal rules in the computer. Both variants focusthe designers intentions on developing the interaction language.

4. The workshop perspective views the human as a craftsman employing thecomputer as a workshop. Work is carried out in certain locations, withmaterials, using tools. The tool metaphor has become very popular for it'sconnotations of natural simplicity and directness. But the wide spread usehas created an inflation and loss of meaning to these kinds of metaphor.The design of a system from the workshop perspective means that thedesigner must understand the users world of concepts and procedures.Users are seen as experts from whom the designer must learn.

5. From the media perspective, the network, the computers, and applicationsrunning on them are seen as flexible technical means to supportcoordination, communication and cooperation between people.Metaphorical understandings employ concepts to do with the real worldobjects of communication, such as mail, telephone, notes andblackboards, and with real world environments of communication, such asconference rooms. Designers must focus on understanding and supportingthe way people communicate, developing the possibilities inherent in thecomputer to support this.


How we worked with this style conceptThis way of understanding interaction style was applied in two cases:A student took her masters thesis on the subject of defining interaction stylein an historic analysis of radios, and a workshop was arranged at the DanfossMuseum to identify the historic interaction styles implicit in the developmentDanfoss products, as a preliminary study for the Danfoss Smart Windowworkshop described in chapter 6.

Birgit Pedersen’s Masters thesis on interaction style inthe history of radiosIn her masters thesis Birgit Pedersen (1997) produced a model of therelationship between product properties, interaction styles and humanexperience, and she used these as a basis for a historic analysis of radios.Pedersen’s model assumes that the relationship between user and product isdynamic, therefore no directional arrows are drawn, and the connecting linesare only to illustrate a hypothetical example.

Figure 56: The chain of relationships between Interaction elements and the users ability tounderstand are mediated by the products way of interacting and the contextual significance of

five interaction style factors. (after Pedersen 1997)

"Me" is the user’s personality or psychological makeup within a contextualframework. These are the receiving conditions for experiencing interaction.In the figure three people are depicted.At the opposite end, a number of characteristic interaction elements constitutea way of interacting. Interaction elements are to fragmented to be meaningfulon their own but are relevant because they constitute the design elements. E.g.press a button many times, turn-listen-turn-listen-turn-listen-etc., or holding abutton in. The Way-of-Interacting is the meaning carrying part of interaction.E.g. direct manipulation of the X, or one way visual communication, orquestion and answer-form.Interaction style is, that which is most important to the user, about the way-of-interacting, given the users psychological and contextual situation orcondition.

“Me”(3 people)

Five interactionstyle factors

Way ofinteracting

Interactionelements


Figure 57: A collage of radios from Pedersen’s historical analysis

Pedersen suggests building a historical analysis on five different aspects ofinteraction style, inspired by Buur & Windum’s (1994) proposal of fiveperspectives that may aid the designer in understanding users and interaction.Buur & Windum’s five perspectives are:1. The technical perspective: Mans abilities can be described like the

performance of a machine. Which means that it should be possible toautomate functions man previously did.

2. The ergonomic perspective sees man as a biological organism who shouldwork as comfortably as possible and without unnecessary strain in allsituations

3. The psychological perspective sees man as an actively thinking andreasoning individual who perceives the operation of equipment as anintelligent dialogue. Operating the product is a chain of decisions aboutwhat the operator should do.

4. The pedagogical perspective is based on the fact that man continuallylearns both knowledge and skills. Operating a product can also beregarded as such a learning process.

5. The social perspective: Man lives in a set of social relations andconnections. Technical products and their user interfaces can affect theserelations.

As an example, Pedersen analyses part of a hypothetical interaction with aBrownie Tube Type Crystal Radio from 1923: The product elements involvedare a strip of metal on the right side of the coil, which has electrical contact tothe rest of the circuit on the top. A point with a small finger grip slides alongthe metal strip. The way-of interacting is direct manipulation of componentsin the electrical circuit for radio wave tuning. The interaction elementsbecome grasping the point between two fingertips and moving it up and downthe coil, repeatedly moving a little on the point, or moving, listening, moving,listening, moving, listening,....

Analyzing the interaction style with Buur & Windum’s 5 perspectives resultsin the following five descriptions:Technical perspective: Low automation, the human has to do everythingmechanical to receive radio waves.


Ergonomic perspective: A small and flimsy mechanism best suited for smalland precise hands. Low activation force. Difficult to see properly because ofsize and position/orientation. It requires fine motoric capabilities of the user.Psychological perspective: The components show, in part, how the productoperates. At the time (1923 ) users would have seen similar mechanisms inother products.Pedagogical perspective: Direct relationship between length of coil andwavelength. Unclear response to actions because many different factors notdirectly related to the users action may generate events at the same time (radioprogram, antenna and other connections, crystal, atmospheric conditions)Social perspective: The interest of certain users, technical appearance, nodesigned status but represents new mode of communication in society.

Figure 58: Brownie Tube Type Crystal Radio from 1923

Finally, to understand how these factors of interaction style might influenceusers, Pedersen employs character description and a written scenario to reacha degree of empathy with a user of a previous age. I have modified andtranslated a sample:"Ola is afraid he might break the radio. It is a costly thing, he thinks, and heknows he could not afford to buy one himself. Any way it is quite a luxury anda little silly, but exiting, he thinks.He is 27 years old, a fisherman. It is the year of 1925. Mackerel fishing is overfor this year, it was not a very good year, but OK. Now he is home fitting outhis vessel for traveling north to fish for cod. He has spent all week changing afew planks in the hull and hammering nails. We meet him in a small, white,wooden house in a fjord on the west coast of Norway. It's Sunday, afterchurch and Ola's friend Åge, has invited him over to explore and show off theEnglish radio he bought when he was in Bergen three weeks ago.Ola thinks he must seem clumsy as he holds the slider between two fingers,and steadies the radio with a big rough hand. Åge has explained how itworks; there are radio transmissions for a few hours at this time on Sundays.The invisible radio waves come into the antenna and go through the wire hereand end up in the headphones he has on his ears, so he can hear them. ButOla has never seen a radio before. His brother who owns a store has agramophone which he has seen and heard on occasion, but this is different.You have to listen carefully and do small precise adjustments to the


mechanism. Åge is leaning over his shoulder, watching, and listening in.There is a lot of scratching and crackling in the earphones, and sometimes hehears the transmission, but he has trouble keeping it tuned.Pedersen points out how only the ergonomic and social factors meananything at the moment for Ola's experience of interaction style, but as hegrows more used to the radio the other perspectives might come to the frontof his understanding, and change his experience.

Based on an historical analysis and the description of a number of radiosbased on field studies. Pedersen identifies four epochs of radio technology.Crystal, Tube, Transistor and Digital. The chart starts at 1915 because this wasthe approximate time the technology left the lab, and became accessible forthe ordinary user. It ends in the present with pilot broadcasting of DAB.

Figure 59: Time scale of radio technology epochs (Pedersen 1997)

Based on literature and museum studies she identifies historical interactionrelated events for each perspective and maps them on the chart below. Thesize of the dots indicate the relative importance of events.

Figure 60: Interaction style related events in radio history (Pedersen 1997)

A detailed analysis of the relationship between technology and interactionseems to indicate that there is an interplay between technology push andmarket pull in the development, Pedersen says. It seems that a deterioration oftechnological qualities relative to peoples needs, reach a point where it inspiresa new technological step. And then there is a consolidating phase again, withslow refinement of the technology.Interaction events, thus depicted, do not say anything about trends andevolutions of perspective in relationship to technology and interaction. Thequalitative results of the analysis are therefore presented in the diagram below.

Figure 61: Dominance and extent of interaction style factors in radio history (Pedersen 1997)

TechnicalErgonomic

PsychologicalPedagogical

Social

TechnicalErgonomic

PsychologicalPedagogical

Social

DAB

Transistor

Tube

Crystal


The Danfoss Museum WorkshopHow do the visions, needs and limitations of a historic period influence thecreation of products and their interfaces? How might Danfoss designers 20,40 or 60 years ago have been influenced by the technology, culture and valuesystems of their time and place of work? To study these questions wearranged a workshop to study the history of interaction style at the DanfossMuseum. The museum is situated on the family farm of the founder, MadsClausen. He had his office and home here and built factories on thesurrounding fields from 1933 to the present, when company headquarters fanout in approximately a kilometers radius.The museum contains a reconstruction of the earliest production facilities, aneducational display of working products and changing exhibitions in the farmbuilding. In the house, the original living quarters and office along with acomplete chronological presentation of products are presented. It also housesa library with comprehensive archives of sales material, manuals and newsclippings. For the workshop we were kindly granted the use of the wholemuseum for a day. Nine people, 3 industrial designers, a computer scienceresearcher, a multimedia designer and 4 engineers worked in three groups tostudy the following three questions concerning style:.1. As technology evolves, product properties such as activation force, user

feedback, construction and visual form are changed. This opens up newpossibilities for designing interaction style and influences existinginteraction styles. Choose an interface function such as a thermostatadjustment or heat curve setting and study how the interaction styleschange in different contexts and applications. Follow a product through anumber of generations and study the evolution or revolutions of interfacestyle.

2. The way people work and the way they view themselves is an integral partof the designs they produce. When choosing functions or control organs,writing documentation and sales material many people in the organizationhave to make judgments of their customers and users. Try to characterizethe Danfoss spirit. How is it reflected in the design of user interfaces? Isthere an evolution of the Danfoss spirit? What assumptions about the userand the users interaction styles are implicit in the spirit of the company

3. In industrial design, architecture, art etc. styles are often created on amacro level by referring to the "spirit of the times". Later, in books ofhistory, a causality is established between social, political, economic andtechnological factors and the emergence of new styles. From a micro-perspective styles are exemplified by pointing out characteristic detailsand their role in the totality of the object. Characterize the social situation,political climate, technological paradigms or other relevant factors that setDanfoss products and interaction styles in a context. What values orviewpoints of man and machine dominate the spirit of the times? Howdoes this influence interaction styles in the products at the museum?

The results were positive:The groups worked independently, but found that there was a reasonableoverlap of styles identified from the three perspectives. Developments intechnology, company spirit and society seemed to fit easily together,supporting the claim for a causal relationship between influencing factors andthe resulting styles. To present all three aspects of each style we preparedposters such as inFigure 62, in which pictures, imaginary quotations and explanatory text foreach aspect was placed side by side. The results are summarized on thefollowing pages:


Figure 62: A poster of the machine cowboy style of interaction from Danfoss' earliest years.The first of four historic interaction styles synthesized from the findings of the three groups.


The Machine Cowboy period from 1933 to 1969

Interaction and Functionality -Interfaces are characterized by simple, mechanically inspired forms.Interaction is based on heavy activation forces and direct tactile feedback.There are few, often only a single, interface element or operations. In the endof the period materials change from the earlier backelite to high pressuremolded plastics. This allows more detailed and complicated forms.

Figure 63: A cut out thermostat valve showing how it is made

Interaction and the Company Spirit - "The Founding Father"In the early years, naturally, the company spirit is strongly influenced by thefounder, Mads Clausen. He is known as a problem solver of few words "I cando it!" might be a fitting motto. Characteristics of the Danfoss spirit of thisperiod are the traits of the pioneer. Solutions are simple, quick and self made.Developing the technology of the products is the major concern. Risks aretaken, there is a stubborn persistence, moderation and hardiness that ensuresthe success of major projects. Respect for roots and traditions are a majormoderator in decisions.

Figure 64: The original factory building is jacked up and a new story built underneath becauseno nearby land was available (Steen Hansen 1994)


The company’s relationship to users is personal and based on sharedtechnical knowledge. The goal is to solve technical problems. The product inthis period has only the essential buttons. There are few instructions. Standardknobs and buttons are bought and used in many different products. Interfacedesign and esthetics is only icing on the cake.

Interaction as a Sign of the Times - "The Machine Cowboy"In this period optimism and a drive to use science to solve the worldsproblems dominated our positive view of technology. This is exemplified inarchitecture and design in the functionalist style. Le Corbusier talked ofhousing every body in comfortable clean and airy "living machines". Inscience fiction Flash Gordon won the fight between good and evil withblasters and rockets just like we won the world wars and took the first stepsinto space. To achieve this man had to adapt to the machine like Chaplinportrayed in "Modern Times". The negative side of technology was alsoapparent and grew stronger through the whole period especially after theAtomic bomb. The user of technology at the time should be someone whohad an intimate knowledge of it. A typical problem would be; "should we usethe TC-1 or the TC 2/3?". Interaction was based on working with tools ormachine-like controls. Controls were often hidden inside the product or as apart of the structure.


The period of the analog professional from 1970 to 1979

Interaction and Functionality - "Miniaturization and abstraction"

Figure 65: Potensiometers and printed instructions on the PCB’s in this frequency converter aremade for the professional serviceman

Analog electronics takes over control of the mechanism. Activation forces arereduced and direct feedback is reduced or disappears. The LED display isintroduced in the interface. The trend towards miniaturization of product andinterface starts.

Interaction and the Company Spirit - " Professionalism"In this period, the willingness to find and implement quick solutions isreplaced by thoroughness and professionalism; User interfaces have a cleanFunctionalistic style. Instructions and product graphics are given higherpriority in step with an increasing attention to discussion and documentationthroughout the company.

Interaction as a Sign of the Times - The Analog Professional"As computing and automation become realities, fear of being replaced by themachine grows. Central data processing is a reality. As is the thought of acomputer large enough to serve all the computing needs of the world. Thehippie movement counterpoised the view of the scientist as someone totallyobjective and without social or practical abilities. In the comic Tintin this isexemplified in Professor Turnesol who can build a moon rocket but is unableto get dressed properly!Interaction goes of-line. Parameters are manipulated before hand to set up theSystem. "Should we set the start voltage to 2,0 or 3,5 ?". Computers do batchprocessing.


The period of the Digital Hacker - from 1980 to 1994

Interaction and Functionality - "Going Digital"Miniaturization reaches the limit of human abilityand miniaturization of interfaces stop, grow a littleand stabilize on a practical size. Miniaturizationcontinues in mechanics and electronics. Electronicschange from analog to digital and the number ofparameters to control start an exponential growth.On the VLT frequency converter the number ofparameters grow from 7 to approx. 250 in tenyears. The user interface separates from thefunctional part of the product and takes on amenu-tree structure instead of one control = onefunction. LCD screens and plastic foil buttons areintroduced. They are cheep and easy to clean butlack tactile feedback.

Interaction and the Company Spirit - "We areBig!"Bureaucracy increases, pride in the products issupplemented by a growing self consciousness:"Danfoss is market leader in its fields so we don'tneed to copy anybody!". There is little inclinationto look outside the company for inspiration,except for reassurance, nor to accept criticism.With the growth of the company, users becomeanonymous to the developers: Sales people act asgo-betweens and qualitative customer knowledge istransformed in to quantitative marketing data.

Interaction as a Sign of the Times - "The DigitalHacker"PC’s are introduced, and the System changescharacter but continues an explosive growth. Insci-fi movies like “Star Trek”, problems aresolved by pressing the right buttons. “BladeRunner” introduces a new view of technology assomething that can be perverted, ethically complexand dirty. Technology is no longer the domain ofscientists. "Everybody" uses hi-tech.

Figure 66: Monolithic designand function explosion


Molly - the enhanced human from 1995

Interaction and FunctionalityAt Danfoss remote controls and communication-busses are the interface components that indicatethe time to come. Industrial designers are used toshape products and identity is being discussed.

Interaction and the Company Spirit - "We havealways done it this way, but..."This period is initiated by a reaction against thearrogance of previous times; "we may not be thebest after all". Developers become aware that theyknow too little about users and customers. There isan increasing attention to the professionalism ofprocesses too: How products are developed, howuser/customer involvement is established andmaintained.

Interaction as a Sign of the Times - "Molly, theenhanced human"Human and computer collaborate and integrate in

biotechnology. Fritjof Capra writes of science and the rising wave of culture.Objective measures of intelligence are replaced by emotional intelligence, amore holistic approach. We are disillusioned about science and technologybut accept it as a part of life and as our major means of expression. The firstgeneration that is born with a computer is growing up. William Gibson’snovels from "Neuromancer" to “Idoru” express this new view and coin theterms cyberspace and cyberpunk. Molly, one of Gibson’s figures, might talkabout a machine like this: "If we tickle it a little we might make it loop"

Observations from the Danfoss Museum workshopThe museum focused on presenting the company's technologicaldevelopment in relationship to its physical growth, market growth andproduction technology. It was possible to feel the action of knobs andswitches but there was little contextual information. The museum provided nounderstanding of the company spirit (beyond the pioneering days), what usersthought of the products, what using the products was like in context.

Changes in interaction style where most obvious when following thedevelopment of one product or a selection of functions over time as opposedto looking at many different products or functions over time - they seemed tofollow their individual paths - answering to different impulses within the style.The research teams needed to see where inspiration for a solution came fromto be able to judge the product before them.: "We need to know about theproducts that created the archetype or paradigm for the style", they said.

Understanding interaction style gave a different perspective fromparticipatory methods of inquiry. "Style thinking seems to give us an empathicunderstanding without stigmatizing users or contexts".

Figure 67: Computer mediateddirect control


Style and quality IssuesIn Pedersen’s analysis, Way-of-interacting, Elements of Interaction andProduct properties were similar to three levels in Hierarchic Task Analysis(Kirwan & Ainsworth 1992) or function-means trees in engineering designtheory (Tjalve 1976), (Andreassen 1995) Above the top level she placesInteraction style, but not as another level of generalization. "Interaction styleis a set of characteristics of an interaction that may be traced as a feeling inthe user" (Pedersen 1997 p22). Interaction style in her interpretation is theanalysis and categorization of the interaction potential of a product in acontext of use. Although Buur & Windum’s five perspectives may not be thebest for this purpose, her idea is sound. When the categories are explicated, itis possible to discuss the basic presumptions about users experiences ofproducts in use.

User characterizationand scenario description

Five elements ofinteraction styledescribing the meetingof user and TS in use.

Way of interactingneccesary for operatingproduct as intended bythe designer

Basic interactonalelements inherent inproduct

Properties of Technicalsystem

Psychologicalproperties of human /Physiological propertiesof human

Level o fgeneral izat i on

Interacti on pro ces s Tecnical sy stemHuman sy stem

Figure 68: The elements of Pedersen’s analysis

Company spirit andculture

Society's mutualunderstanding of, andfeeling for, technology:"spirit of the time"

How Danfoss productsreflect what areimportant values

The interactionpreseumptions builtinto the product

Properties of Technicalsystem

Psychologicalproperties of humanPhysiological propertiesof human

Users experience ofinteracting with thetechnical system

Product developersunderstanding of usersneeds, knowledgeinterests and intentions

Level ofgenerali zat io n

Interact io n proces s Tecnical s ys temHuman s ys tem

Figure 69: The elements of the Danfoss museum workshop analysis


While Pedersen isolated the system of use from the system of developmentand production. The Danfoss museum workshop looked at interaction as theresult of deliberations within a human system that both used, designed andjudged(socially). Pedersen’s theory is illustrated inFigure 68. It compares descriptions at different levels of generalizations of thehuman system, the technical system, and the interaction process. Figure 69maps the descriptions from the Danfoss case, for comparison, although thevertical scale is not proportional. The historical analysis in the Danfossworkshop helped create an understanding for the roots and possiblemotivations of the interaction styles. The research teams found qualities ofuse, which might still have a bearing on interface design even thought the oldembodiments are outdated. They also became aware of the underlyingphilosophies governing the choice of functions and their realization. Thisprovided them with insights into alternative value systems. At the time of theHistory workshop our goal was the conceptual design of a future processcontrol system. However, in parallel a new generation of ElectronicTemperature Control was in the starting blocks. The insights gained from theworkshop proved to have direct and practical spin-off's into this project. It setDanfoss’ designers to thinking about ways of realizing some of theinteraction qualities from the old electro-mechanical systems, in the newdigital ones to overcome the problem of programming them.

Figure 70: In the old interface the cardboard disk is the actual program. In the new interface thesmart card represents the program and the two faces of the card equal two modes, but the actual

program is invisible.

The old ELC 601 had a cardboard disk that could be cut in sections torepresent periods of high and low temperature. The user could see the periodsbecause the disk was printed with a time dial, and the programs were easy tochange, you could hold them in your hand to compare all the programs,choose one and mount it. The new product was to be electronicallyprogrammable, and function in two modes, one for the user, and a moretechnically advanced for installation and service. The interaction quality ofholding the program was realized by using a Smart Card with two sides, onefor the user and one for the service technician. Each card contained oneprogram. These could be factory default alternatives, or programs thetechnician had set for the customer. Advanced customers could make ormodify their own program cards.


Proposal for Interaction stylesIn the cases presented here, there has been a focus on the relationship betweensociety and technology, but the aesthetic rationality of the socio-technicalcultures have not been an explicit factor. In archeology (Almgren 1983) itwas found that the same ornaments change visual style to be reused in newcontexts, while the denotative basis is the same. Could it be that there are afinite set of expressive qualities that remanifest themselves in new ways againand again as reactions to each other? If they were general enough thesequalities could be applied as arguments for many different perspectives, andparadigms, while actually building on basic interaction experiences, and thebasic emotions of human beings. Dondis (1993 pp132-144) states that almostall the products of the visual arts and crafts in mans history can be related tofive broad categories of visual style: primitive, expressionistic, classical,embellished and functional. Lesser style periods or schools, she states, relate incharacter to one or a few of these all-encompassing categories. She goes on todescribe them. Detailing the major historical motivations for the emergence ofthe style in philosophy, politics, religion and ethics. Concluding each categorywith a list of some aesthetic techniques commonly used within the style.I will give a short resume of each, and then attempt to draw parallels tointeractions represented by people and things:

PrimitivismEvery visual style draws its character and appearance from the visualtechniques that are applied, whether consciously, by the highly trained artistand artisan or unconsciously, as in the case of the primitive or child. Primitiveart and design is a style that is rich on symbols with strongly attachedmeaning. It therefore has more in common with writing than visualexpression. This is due to symbolic drawing taking the place and function ofboth depiction and writing. The style is simple, concrete, and avoidsadornment for the sake of direct, to-the-point communication, Dondis says.

Primitive interaction must be of the type found inyoung children, it could also be what is charmingabout candid and enthusiastic people of any age.Their purity of heart makes them believable andeasy to sympathize with. On the negative side, thesame personality traits may come across as naiveand unsophisticated, especially to someone of amore embellished style. This kind of interaction isdirect and to the point driven by a real passion forthe subject matter. Things are understood for theirmeaning at face value. This does not mean that theworld is poor on symbols and meaning, but thatthings are what they seem. E.g. a child sitting onsomeone's lap is acting out of intimacy and trust, itis not conceivable to sit there for other purposes.Looking for products and interfaces with thepotential for this kind of interaction, the eye fallson simple hand tools and kitchen utensils like theknife, the bowl, the cup and spoon. Chairs, beds,simple doors that look like what they are and do.

Objects with affordances that are obvious and primary to their being.

Primitive Techniques:• Exaggeration - of

important detail andunique characteristics.

• Spontaneity - unconcernfor detail and a headlongrush into the subjectmatter

• Activeness• Simplicity - of shape and

other effects• Distortion• Flatness - no perspective

or depth• Irregularity• Roundness• Colorfulness - primary

colors


ExpressionismExpressionism is closely related to primitivism the only major difference isintentionality. "Frequently the exaggerated detail of the primitive is part of anoutreach toward representationalism, a sincere attempt to make things lookmore real. Expressionism uses exaggeration purposefully to distort reality. It isa style that seeks to provoke emotion whether religious or intellectual. Someof the cause may be in the early Hebrew prohibition of image worship, whichwas also adopted to some degree by Christianity. The compromise was anabstraction from reality that was still recognizable and which necessitated afocus on emotion. E.g.: Byzantine, Gothic styles and the artists ElGreco andKokoschka

The type of person embodying expressionisticaction could be the young and struggling artistwho wants to live out the archetype: Anindividualist seeking contact with his intuitiveemotive powers, and making the most of the role!Also a good orator would try through choice ofwords, tone of voice and body language, to evokeemotions and sympathy for his cause.Longer chains of operations emphasizing eachaction may be expected of an expressionisticaction. For example unlocking a door with twolocks, keys on a big ring with many others, pullingthe latch and hearing the mechanism. The doorsqueaks on its hinges to emphasize opening. Thedoor is probably heavy like a safe or the oak gate

of a castle. Products and interfaces supporting this kind of interaction wouldbe directly manipulatable but more intricate than primitive objects. Sportsequipment like a kayak, windsurfer or skateboard have obvious affordances,but need a lot of training to master. They allow a variety of use and focus onexaggerated spontaneity, activeness and complex and varied ways of doingthe moves they afford.

ClassicismThe rationality of design methodology present in Greek and Roman artderives its inspiration from the love of nature and the beauty of reality on onehand, and the idea of the pure and perfect truth through philosophy,geometry and mathematics on the other. The Greco-Roman style reemergedin the Renaissance

Classical interaction is rational and intellectualactivity based on abstraction, routine andsystematism. The actions are without superfluousoperations while composed with rhythm andharmony. A classical ballet dancer or a productionline worker in a well ordered factory can both takepride in completing their activities in the best waypossible, enjoying the harmony of the system ofactions they are contributing to realizing. Productsor interfaces allowing a classical interaction stylemay be computer programming or setting ananalog alarm clock by turning the dial for thealarm hand to the right time and arming the alarm

by switching it on. If this is a routine done every evening it contains within itall of Dondis Classical techniques of expression.

E x p r e s s i o n i s t i cTechniques• Exaggeration• Spontaneity• Activeness• Complexity• Roundness• Boldness• Variation• Distortion• Irregularity• Juxtaposition• Verticality

Classical Techniques• Harmony• Simplicity• Accuracy• Symmetry• Sharpness• Monocromaticity• Depth• Consistency• Stasis• Unity


The embellished styleThis style is rich in complexities of design, it is associated with wealth andpower. It is florid and overstated with endless surface decorations like e.g., theBaroque, Art Nouveau, Victorian or Late Roman styles. " The grandioseeffects it can produce are an abandonment of reality for theatricaldecoration, the world of fantasy"

Embellished interaction is the style of religiousceremony or television newscasts or of theater andmovies. The people performing in these situationsact out roles that are predefined, intricate symbolsin their culture. Although the details of a Sundaysermon are different each time and from priest topriest, the format remains the same and people goto church expecting to take part in a prescribedway. The same is the case when seeing a movie orgoing to a restaurant or a nightclub. You enter afantasy world where there is a large complexityand intricacy of meaning to be found. Fascinationstems from the embellishments while the format

creates a secure platform for the language of expression. We allow ourselvesto be swept of our feet because we can always walk out of it all in the end.Products and interfaces supporting this kind of action might be: The holeritual of taking a trip on an airplane (piloting it is more of a classicalinteraction), preparing for a Saturday evening in front of the TV, or anaudiophile putting a new record on his turntable. The fashion industry ofclothes and interiors caters to this style of interaction.

FunctionalityAlthough Functionality is primarily associated with 20th. century design,finding pleasure in the aesthetics of workmanship is as old as the strugglebetween the craftsman and his medium. The major difference from otherstylistic approaches is the seeking of beauty in the thematic and expressivequalities of the basic and underlying structure of the visual matter. Examplesmay be the Arts and Crafts movement, the Pre-Raphaelites, or Functionalism.

Functional interaction is as old as the first pot. Theideals of utility and economy - simple means -were first associated with the craftsman but havesince become the signs of industrialization.Functional Interaction seeks the basic material andhandles it with "sachlichkeit" seeking beauty in thesimple. The Bauhaus school attempted to live asthey taught. Housing students, clothing them andfeeding them while sitting on stools and at tablesof their own design, devoid of ornament. Theiractions were those of Zen Buddhists with theembellishments cut away. Working in clay, woodor machine shops they directly experienced thematerials resistance to the will and action of thedesigner.Products or interfaces could be: the assembly ofmachine parts or servicing of a car. Woodworkingor gardening

Embellished Techniques• Complexity• Intricacy• Exaggeration• Roundness• Boldness• Fragmentation• Variation• Colorfulness• Activeness• Brightness

Functional Techniques• Simplicity• Symmetry• Angularity• Predictability• Consistency• Sequenciality• Unity• Repetition• Economy• Subtlety• Flatness• Regularity• Sharpness• Monocromaticity• Mechanicalness


Results of studying the socio-technical style concept

A style is a representation of the sound thinking of its timeThe SUI style experiment of connecting aesthetic expressions to people andobjects explores a higher level of interaction style than the principles ofinteraction experiences proposed for SUI styles at the categorizing level (page129). Because the starting point is a discussion of emotional and social valuesystems, not principle ways of realizing a feeling through artifacts, the readermust look past concrete examples to the underlying values they represent.With this level of style thinking we are approaching Ylimaula and Kusch’sphenomenological statements on the nature of art and style. At this level, thestyle of an artifact or interaction is a representation of the underlyingphilosophy, or manner of sound thinking that makes the definition ofcharacteristics possible. Art and style represent the horizon of knowing, thepoint and way in which consciousness is formed about the world. However,there must be some simplification and adjustment taking place in order torealize the basic ideas. This means that we can still only reach anunderstanding of the underlying manner of sound thinking throughrepresentations.

A historic analysis is actually a document of its own timeBoth Pedersen’s work and the Danfoss museum workshop, as well as thefashions and perspectives of HCI, show that style thinking at this level is aboutthe way designers reflect and interpret social values, norms and interests. Bydeciding what is important to their society, designers also decide the criteriafor judging other times and places. As historical documents the judgmentsmade are as important as the times they judge. Both Maaß & Oberquelle(1992) and Pedersen propose that interaction style may be analyzed byexplicating the perspectives the designer uses. Schorske (1981 p.xxi) alsopoints out that historians may pick cultural elements and apply them to theirown particular conception of history's general direction. We will never be freeof applying our own interpretation of reality, but by being conscious of thepremises for our decisions it will be possible to analyze our ownunderstanding in relationship to the material at hand, and our judgments,methods and models of understanding will be the background material forfuture style discussions.


4.6 The problem of stylingIn this, the final section of the chapter, I will address the problem of styling:the adverse side of thinking in terms of style. Styling appears under differentnames in all applied style discussions. It is often broken down into morefundamental problems such as: How do we know when our work is originaland independent? How do we know whether it has the subtlety and personalitythat defines a true work of art as opposed to being an insensitive or cynicalcopy? How do we know when we are expressing true poetry in Heidegger’ssense? My styling problem in the context of this thesis might be formulatedas: How can we retain the qualities of affective power and originality in asystematic design process? A process where interaction phenomena, productproperties and their associated qualities are defined, discussed and made theobjects of conscious deliberation?

A definition of styling in designIn “The dictionary of 20th Century Design” John Pile (1994 p255) definesstyling as:“Term used to describe design, particularly industrial or product, that isconcerned with appearance alone, often with the fashionable. The term iswidely used in the American automobile industry as synonymous with“design”, reflecting the view that it is separated from and unrelated toengineering. The resulting appearance of American automobiles is oftencharacterized by such obtrusive details as excessive chromium trim, tail fins,and similar elements introduced to suggest newness and aid sales throughforced obsolescence. As a result, outside of the automobile industry, stylinghas become a pejorative term, suggesting meaningless form variationdeveloped only for supposed commercial advantage. Many designersemphasize the contrast between “design” meaning functional, structural andform considerations considered in combination as the basis for innovation,and “styling” as surface decorative design unrelated to utilitarian andpractical value.”

This definition supposes two things: first that form without function andstructure is valueless in an industrial design context because it lacks utilitarian,practical value, second, that the development of pure form for commercialpurposes is immoral or defiled in some way. What is the reason for thisposition? Is it due to a functionalistic design philosophy, or due to a low levelof style thinking in a styling process, producing bad results?

The problem of styling as a design procedureAlthough the terms used are different: mannerism, taste, kitsch, fashion, etc.;all the commercial arts, design and architecture have similar discussions.David Pye (1978), former Professor of Furniture Design at The Royal Collegeof Art in London, is both an architect, industrial designer and artist, he arguesthe relative merit of style, styling and aesthetic originality:"The meaning and importance - a limited importance, as it seems to me - oftaste, style and fashion in art particularly need attention at present, for themisconception that they are of primary importance is widely held and the artof design seems seldom to be discussed in terms of anything else. Thus itcomes about that originality is thought of only in terms of stylistic originality."So, what Pye is saying is that originality is something more than style and thatonly focusing on styling reduces the originality of a work. He continues:"That an artist should work in the general style of his time is all but inevitable,except in those rare cases of men of exceptional powers who make a fresh


departure. The work of leading users of a still evolving style shows the othersin what fields experiment is likely to be productive, and shows them whatartifices have been found expressive and may still be capable of furtherdevelopment." Here Pye says that style guides artistic effort, and that artisticmerit is built on style but is not a part of it. At the same time great artists maydefine a new style. This argument seems to support Ylimaula's Heideggerianstyle theory. Styling is a bottom-up process, while art is a top-down process.Art defines a style, but characteristics of a style do not create art. Pyecontinues his argument in the same direction:“The style to which a work of art belongs is quite irrelevant to its merit, butany style, while it is alive, has a positive value to practitioners none the less,for it puts limits on the designers freedom of choice about the appearance ofwhat they are designing. Adherence to a style as the designer experiences it issimply a predisposition to choose shapes of a certain character and to avoid,particularly to avoid, shapes associated with demoded styles. If he workedwith no such predisposition, his freedom of choice would often be limitlessand all design would in Lethaby´s phrase be "only one man deep". But thestyle gives the designer a point of departure and self-imposed boundaries - illdefined, of course - to the ground he may explore as he makes the series ofchoices about appearance...(that)…will be forced on him willy-nilly in theprocess of design. What will concern him, if he is a good artist, will not bemerely to "work in " certain recognizable features and clichés which constitutethe style, but to handle such features and to modify them in such a way thatwhile still recognizably prompted by the style they take on a new individualityof their own, and become elements of a work of art instead of a pastiche of thework of the most successful designers of the time; such as anyone can achieveby thumbing through a few magazines."Why does Pye emphasize avoiding demoded styles? What does demodedmean in this context? Pye points out that there is a difference betweendeveloping an artifact in a style and being able to understand the essence oremotional power of a style and using the style as a media for expression. Itseems the problem of styling is due to lack of artistic power and beauty.

Per Aage Brandt, a Danish semiotic philosopher, lists a series of properties (orphenomenological features, as he calls them) of works of art in an articlecalled "Objects, Signs and Works of Art" (1994). These semiotic properties arewhat differentiate an artwork from a series produced object:• Uniqueness - singularity• Namedness - they have title and signature. Opposite to tables and chairs

which are perceived as interchangeable tokens and named by their serialappellatives

• Infinite, unlimited semiosis - endless or interminable interpretation• Strong affective charge - an emotional "force" present in perception where

as serial objects having a limited semiosis could be said to replace functionand functional meaning for affective energy.

I will explore some nuances of these properties through some examples oftypes of products. I hope to show that, although Brandt's properties may beexhaustive, there is a fuzzy border when defining art, that is a matter of thedegree to which Brandt's criteria are fulfilled, and that we may therefore findartistic merit in series produced objects. First, how do the properties of a workof art function for describing something that is not a work of art? A pair ofLevi's 501 jeans is a cult product. It is named, but as a class or type and hasthereby been captured by stylistic history. Because it has created its type, theability to create new ways of interpreting it has been limited. 501 is a symbol


of a finite set of cultures. It is reproduced in many variations, and underdifferent names, it has some uniqueness relatively to its copies, but the type asa whole is stronger than 501's as individuals. Levi's, marketing, as for exampleNike's or Coca-Cola's is concerned with resemantisizing and individualizingtheir objects in relationship to the others of the type. E.g.; with the slogan "It'sthe Real Thing!", Coca-Cola tries to impart a degree of uniqueness to theirproduct, it’s not just a drink. Nike says that their shoes are special becausethey allow a higher degree of spontaneity, power and initiative: "Just do it!".Although the Levi's 501 has been resemantisized many times in finer detail tofit new sub cultures through TV and film commercials, its power of semiosis islimited. It is not a work of art because it’s not the object itself that creates thenew meaning. The meaning is created and applied to the product bymarketing the product as a representation of a story. The story has affectivepower and uniqueness for a while.Brandt says that serial objects, by not being unique, may be interchangeablewith others of the same type. They refer only to function and meaning, whileworks of art exchange function for affect. They are in a sense meaninglessbut affective. Affective power assumes that the artifact has properties thatemotionally move the subject before a signification takes place. Brandt pointsto Pierce' Firstness, inspired by phenomenological Noema. Again, an attemptat an example:Affect is one of the effects that the tabloid press tries to realize each day bythe way they present their material on the first page. I am thinking of color,composition, pictures, typeface, size, and a few dramatic words. But bycontinually repeating the same effects, and by all of them using the sameeffects, they make their signs redundant, they lack singularity and theaffective power is lost. There is a continuing inflation of the same effects inorder to draw some affective power out of them. They lack singularity and aretherefore not works of art.In ordinary serial goods like a pair of pants or a newspaper, it is easy to seethe difference from an artwork. But what about the serial objects of Arts andCrafts or what Dormer calls High Design (1990) What happens whendesigners have their identity exposed through the product and the product hasits own name? What about Philippe Stark's "Jucy Salif" citrus fruit juicer, ahand turned pot or a lithograph from a numbered series by an artist? Theseobjects represent a scale towards unlimited semiosis, but they are in a dynamicprocess of typification or a movement down the scale again towardsmonosemi. The "Jucy Salif" had emotional power as a sculptural object, butdue to public exposure loses it as it becomes a symbol of Stark's design andof a period in time that is passing. The more frequent and well known anobject is, the quicker the process. It seems there is a difference here betweenthe subjective experience of the object as an isolated entity - experienced forthe first time, and the meaning of an object over time. Per Aage Brandt pointsout that objects of love also seem to fall within the category of aestheticobjects. Whether it is a beloved person, a pet, or an object or place or even alanguage; these categories of objects undergo a transformation when wechange focus from the social to the individual. "Affective, aesthetic objects arein general pre-organized as serialized, social, ordinary objects; but theyundergo a phenomenological transformation, by which they are extractedfrom their serial organization and made unique, singularized." (1994 p85) Inthis process my old, battered and worn 501 jeans are unique and affectivelyloaded for me. The newspaper that I saved on the day of my daughters birthis an object rich in meaning to me and my daughter because it sets of apowerful semiotic and emotional process for us, but it's just an old newspaperto everybody else


The key point is the possibility for limitless semiosis. Whether the artifact ismade in one or more replicas, whether it has a name, and whether the artist orplace of origin is known is of lesser importance, they are criteria by whichunlimited semiosis may be identified. There is a dual dependence betweenunlimited semiosis and affective charge, since affect is a pre-semioticexperience. Seeing a work of art for the first or the tenth time changes itsaffective value. Because of the introduction of semiosis the emotional powermust find new channels. Brandt points out that there is a continual dialecticbetween the historisizing of objects and the object's ability to create personalaffect and new interpretation. It is when the genre or style becomes verystrong, that it overpowers the object. When every interesting property is seenonly as an exemplar of a type, the object has lost its struggle for singularity."It then crushes the inner difference, and reduces the work to a version of thealready given. Art looses its spell and becomes "bad", "weak", "trivial","kitsch", when its local forms are overshadowed by global constraint, whicherases the immanent dialectics of the work. What happens is that thephenomenological flow of perceived formal properties is inhibited by thefeeling that these forms are properties of other objects serialized (as structures,fictions) by the history of the genre in question, instead of being properties ofthis object."

Having thus developed an understanding ofthe problem of styling: How does it apply tointeraction? Can we make interactionsingular and individually meaningful? Howcan an interaction escape the history itcreates? What makes it routine andmonosemic?Discussions with Professor Didier Aubryfrom the University of Bordeaux and Ecoled'Architecture deNantes, inspired developingthese aspects of interaction style/stylingthrough two case descriptions:

The Case of African “art”When European artists defined traditionalAfrican cultural objects as “primitive art”,they pulled the object out of the culture itwas an integrated part of. In African culturethe object was not a work of art, that isdiscussed at a distance as a purely affectiveobject. It was a necessary part of the wholeculture, where objects often outlived theirowners. E.g., a mask could be a part of aritual dress for a dance. European artists andhistorians seeing the object from outside thecultural context exhibited it in a European

museum, changed the interactive aspect of the object.Today objects of western culture have a transitory nature. We use them andthrow them away when their functional or symbolic value does not please ourpresent state of mind. We do not have to accommodate an object in our livesas it is - we exchange it with something that fits our whims. The object is like afriendly stranger in stead of a family member we are reconciled with, andunderstand as it is. With IT the product is disappearing totally. Only function

Figure 71: Mask from the Dantribe of western Africa in the

Heydt collection of the RietbergMuseum, Zürich.


and symbol remains, or as Crampton Smith says; the product is the interfaceand the story (Chap 1.2). We are freed from interacting with a fixed and naiveproduct. We are in dialog with other people through a media of products thatare constantly changing. But at the same time we have removed some of theaffective and semiotic power from the dialog. Since the communicative objectis gone, the communication channel that created uncertainty and richness ofinterpretation has disappeared. The African mask represented a history thatincreased the affective power and value of the thing by referring to a traditionof activities, of family, and of tribal relationships. One of the challenges ofdesigning for interaction in an IT society will be to put back some of theaffective power. Baudrillard talks of remystifying the object. (1981) Maybeinteraction designers should think in terms of ritualization of actions? Howcan we do this without styling?

The Case of the Norwegian coastal cultural heritageNorway is a long, thin country consisting for a large part of a coastline withrich fishing fields, and functioning as the starting point of trade routes to therest of the world. Therefore, its coastal cultural heritage should be a primeconcern. This has not been the case however, until the beginning of thenineteen eighties. Prior to that, documentation and preservation was focusedon inland cultural objects, buildings and landscapes. Since these were mostisolated from outside influence, it was felt that they best represented theculture of the people. As a starting point for this debate, see the compilationof studies and reports in Holand et.al. (1995) For our purposes it is enough tonote that the focus on Norwegian coastal culture was initiated by privatecitizens and societies who noticed that the country was destroying its historyof the sea. The care and restoration of objects of this culture was done bypeople who enjoyed being on or by the sea, and therefor objects were adaptedto their new role of recreation during restoration. (Kloster, 1996). Theromanticizing of historic wooden working ships is one of the best cases of thisprocess. To be able to afford restoring such a large and costly structure, it ispreferable to use them commercially. The arguments are that through use, notonly the object, but also some of the conditions for the life and crafts ofseamanship will be preserved in a living tradition. However today's users havea totally different social and economic context, and the technology used inthese boats today carries different meanings than a century ago. Is it thereforrelevant to argue that one is preserving the life and crafts on these ships? Or isit only interaction styling? Being able to experience reefing sail by hand in afresh breeze is a totally different experience for a novelty seeking crew onvacation, who can go down below to rest out in modern facilities were thereonce was a cargo hold, and who are paying for the experience for a week.They know that if the going gets too tough they can always start the engineand go home, or even get rescued by helicopter! A century ago there was noengine, you had a damp bunk up in the bow and your income for manymonths depended on the ship. You were underway for months at a time,working on the ship all year round.


Figure 72: The circumstances surrounding modern use of traditional crafts and artifacts alters

the user's interaction style

From the perspective of documenting objects and the functionality of them inuse, the idea of preservation by active use is relevant. The method is betterthan placing the object on display in a museum because there it will be takentotally out of the system it functioned in, and the opportunity to understandthe infinite, minute, details of use will be lost. But from the perspective ofpreserving the culture, the conditions, and the experiences of the peopleworking with the objects in their time, we may be dealing with interactionstyling in the negative sense. For a charter guest the interaction with the shipcan be a hollow prop that does not have the power to become more than acliché. This is most certainly the case for day charter, where the boat is aplatform for selling beer.

For the owner or crew who use the ship and care for it on a daily basis thecontext of use has changed, but the vessel, and the work still create a richcomplex of meaning and feelings with a basis in history, like the Africanmask would back in the village. Håvard Vike (1993) made an anthropologicalstudy of the historic understanding, values and motivations of the peopleworking at one of Norway's three official vessel preservation centers;"Hardanger Fartøyværnsenter", amongst others on the 70 foot charter sloop"Mathilde". He observed that: "...the "atmosphere" created on board createsthe reality that makes a connection between past and present in concretesocial and emotional experiences. The ship is understood as a moral, livingobject because it shows signs of age and a traditional practice, and becausethe guest-sailors feel that the crew expect such an understanding of them"(Vike, 1993 p52 authors translation) This common understanding that isimplicit in the activity makes the crew the key to recontextualizing andresemantisizing the vessel. It is their interpretation and realization of thehistoric meaning of the vessel that is preserved. This is what is lacking in thecase of African “art” or modern communicative use of products. This meansthat in order to avoid interaction styling the object must become a sign of atradition. The product must support traditional actions in a ritual form inorder to preserve a truthful and direct rapport with its users. But the essentialpoint is that the users treat it’s meaning as real, not as a sign. The user has tolive in the reality the product refers to, taking its meaning as the basis for hisor her interpretation of reality. The product has to become a part of the user'slife-world.


Interaction style cannot be designedProduct designers are inclined to seeing the object as an image or sculpturalform in the tradition of the fine arts or as a structure consisting of functionalinterconnections and causal flows of information, material and energy in thetradition of mechanical and systems engineering. Common for bothperspectives is distance and the isolation of the observer. For instance, I havedescribed how the designers understanding of the human as represented inergonomics, has evolved during the last half of the 20th century, from being acomponent of the product system in the 50'ies by way of being a weak link,that must be compensated for in the 60'ies and 70'ies, to the currentunderstanding, of a person to be served by technology. Presently the fields ofHCI and Ergonomics are moving on towards seeing the human as a social,cultural and emotional creature that uses technology as a medium forpersonal and social expression. Isolating product properties and interactionphenomena is proving to be impractically complex, or giving a false, biasedunderstanding, due to over-simplification (Vavik & Øritlsand 1999).

The whole problem of the field of man-machine interaction is to tie togetheragain something that was, actually, once complete and whole. Like in the caseof African art or sailing ships. But how and why did this view of people andtheir artifacts arise? Is it possible to tie the knot again?According to Baudrillard (1981 p185-203) not all cultures produce objects. Itis a concept peculiar to ours, born of the industrial revolution. In this period anew order of production and consumption separated design intention,production and use. The object began to exist at the time of its formalliberation as a sign function. "For the object is not a thing, nor even acategory; it is a status of meaning and a form". This process started duringthe 19th century, but Baudrillard points to the Bauhaus as the point at which itis solidified theoretically. "It is the Bauhaus that institutes this universalsemantization of the environment in which everything becomes the object of acalculus of function and of signification. Total functionality, totalsemiurgy....".With the revolution of the object, design intention was torn away from action,and artifact. Design intention was made the object of an individual treatmentand it became necessary to connect the creative intent behind it, to something.Man, the user, was free to change or pervert the design intentions, and wastherefore unpredictable. The product was chosen because it was accessible formodification. The signs that were built into the product created expectationsof interaction experiences and pointed to the action possibilities the productcould offer the user, independently of context. By incorporating action(intent) in the product even man, objectified, could be made a part of thedesign, a part of the technical system. "Bauhaus marks the point of departureof a veritable political economy of the sign”, says Baudrillard.The economy of the sign has escalated as we have moved from a metallurgicto a semiurgic society, a society that makes and trades meaning orinformation in stead of material goods. Today it is meaning that is value andmeaning that upholds the myth of abundance. The global community, withglobal information is the ideal.If we want to reverse this order of things the distance between designer, user,object and action must be removed. The only way to do this is to let thedesigner be the user, i.e. abolishing design. We have come too far for this,says Baudrillard. Our economy is already based on design; everything isbeing made the object of design, not just products, but the environment, withman in it. In stead of bridging the gap by lessening it we are filling it with


more and more signs, and every piece of information, every design-ableobject becomes an isolated, valued object, including man himself. Baudrillard takes a negative position to this development, pointing out thatwhen man, and his environment are made the objects of value, like in the caseof biotechnology or minority group politics, man himself is entering the fieldof political trade and social control. But he also points out that the policy ofthe economy of the sign is total signification, creating an environment ofcomplete information, what he calls the reconstitution of nature as asimulation model.

Depending on which view point one chooses this thesis may be seen asanother nail in the coffin of a free, holistic and natural, man, or it may be seenas an attempt at explicating some more of the elements of interaction that thepolitical economy of the sign has overlooked so far. Helping to bring uscloser to the complete understanding and appreciation (valuing) of ourselves,our artifacts and our environment that is the goal of design.I have to believe that it is possible to lessen the distance between designer anduser. While not abolishing designers, it is possible to move designers towardsthe user's perception of the object by applying more complex, holistic, andempathic methods and models of the design object. In Baudrillard’sterminology the sign may be more or less complex and polysemic Withincreasing information flow users should be able to distinguish better betweeninteraction styling and real, sincere interaction. The economy of the sign istruly a free market economy, where the value of a sign is the decisive factorfor its survival.

Implications of style thinking on interaction stylingReturning to the three proposed levels of style thinking at the end of section4.3, Does styling pose the same problems at each level? The empiricalexploration of style thinking in Appendix A resulted in these observations:

Within the concept of style as an addition of elements, the problem of stylingis not perceivable. At this level of style thinking the designer is working withinthe style, his concern is with developing high quality solutions, and realizingaffective power in his work within the norms of the style. The styles principlesand characteristics are the designers’ only accessible means of expression, butthey are conceived as rules and conventions, that should not be broken. Thereis only the beauty or virtue of the resulting artifact as a measure of success.The designer does not influence the direction a style is taking, except bycontributing to the collective evolution of the style.Within the second concept: of style as a categorizing system, styling is anundesirable approach to design. It leads to bad quality in objects orinteractions because the uncritical application of style characteristics isuntruthful or dishonest to the essence of an artifact. The fashionable isshallow from this perspective, because it is the uncritical adoration of thecharacteristics of a style, not an appreciation of the true beauty of individualobjects or a sensitivity to the Zeitgeist that are the catalysts of the style. Truedesign when thinking within this concept of style is a matter of identifying thestructural and formal necessities of the object in relationship to its time andplace and realizing them.At the third level, of style as an expression of the time and age in a sociallyand technically detailed landscape, styling is not a problem, but a method anda system of signs. Forms and actions, like words, change meaning as a resultof application in new contexts. Fashionable objects in this case have a design


language exemplifying current thoughts and ideals. The value of styling andfashion is in its relevance for representing current understanding and valuesystems. When an object or interaction no longer takes part in a socialdialectic as a representation and interpreter of current ideas, it acquires anegative value as a simplistic representation of something old that has passed.The ideas and the sound thinking it represented have evolved, and only thesign system remains. Fashionable objects may or may not have high formalaesthetic quality, this is another matter that is dependent on the designerschoice of details and harmonizing of properties etc. - in short, on his or herability to create affective power in the object.

To summarize: Designers can not assure that interaction is aestheticallyvaluable or meaningful to a user because each individual user will develop adifferent kind of interaction. Also, each individual will have a different historyof experiences that gives the interaction different significance. But a group ofpeople may uphold and develop meaning through an exchange of emotionalengagement within the activity. This is the case with historic vessels andAfrican masks and in ceremonious activities like Christmas celebrations orsummer vacations. By designing a story embracing a complex of actors,contexts and artifacts a designer can, specify an interaction in such a way thata ritual relationship may be created between the participants. The nature ofthe activities, their frequency of occurral and the importance attributed to theactivity by users or society decides whether it's meaning will wear down tosomething routine and monosemic. Just like other serial products of design,interaction can not escape the history it creates. But its participants cancontinually reformulate the meaning of interaction. Living in a semiurgicsociety where the creation of rituals becomes the object of commercial valueresults in a lot of people speculating and trading in rituals. We will naturallybe skeptical about ritual actions. Whether we will accept and believe in them isa criterion of good interaction design.

4.7 ConclusionIn this chapter, I addressed my second primary research question: “How dodesigners influence a style of interaction in a social context?” By describingthe connection between designers and interaction style, I have developed amore detailed understanding of the preliminary definition of style fromchapter 1.7. “A style is the mode of presentation of an artwork or designedobject, and may be described by the characteristics of the mode ofpresentation”. I found the following:

The review of the history of style has shown that there is a variety of styletheories for particular applications. Due to over-emphasizing someoperational aspects of different style theories, design strategies such asmannerism and styling have lead to low quality results. Hermerén hassuggested that a structured, critical approach to the problems of style theory isnecessary in order to use the term in the right way. In formulating answers toHermerén’s four first problems, I developed a description of how thedesigner influences a style of interaction:1. The concept of style is applied in many different ways. I have chosen to

focus on explaining products and interactions in light of the designer’sactions and way of thinking, calling it a style of thinking.

2. To achieve this focus, style is understood phenomenologically as thefundamental sense-making of being-in-the-world. Therefore, the


designer’s style of thinking is, basically, the conceptualization ofexperiences leading to categorization of e.g. interactions and products.

3. To describe the anatomy of the style concept at this fundamental level, Iapply the idea that a theory of interaction style might be based on thebalance between three forms of rationality and their associated knowledgeinterests, qualities and design properties.

4. Since style may be applied at any resolution from describing individualactions to describing the spirit of whole societies and historic periods, it isnecessary to identify different levels of knowledge interests. Inspired bythe history of style theory I propose three fundamental levels; Theadditive, the categorizing and the socio-technical levels

An empirical study in sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 explores the idea thatinteraction style would become easier to understand by being aware of threefundamental levels of thinking in terms of style. It is found that this is true ata general level, but that a design discussion about style at a practical level mustbe more detailed and contextual. The categories that are used to define a styleat a practical level will be too specific to the type of product and the contextin time, place and social setting to be generalizable and transferable to othersituations. The most concrete generalizable categories seem to be thedesigners concepts and models, since they represent the issues that are deemedimportant, in each case.In sections 4.3 to 4.5 I touch on Hermerén’s questions 5 and 6 when studyingthe practical results of design processes at the three levels of style thinking.However, as they are mainly concerned with the practical analysis of style,Hermerén’s last two questions remain unanswered at a general level.

Turning to the problem of styling, I find that style becomes problematic,when one only thinks of style at an abstract level, searching for principles andunderlying structures (The categorizing style concept) and then tries to applythis knowledge directly in design. Because the creation of meaning andaffective power are important to the perception of artistic quality it isnecessary for the creative designer to immerse him- or her-self in a style, tothink in the style’s terms in order to use it as a guide and framework fordesign. The only way that a conscious and systematic approach to interactionstyling will succeed is for the designer to create a story around a product. Thestory must have affective power and the ability to uphold and regeneratemeaning for users, so that when users immerse themselves in the style ofinteraction they take over the process of storytelling and take the creation ofmeaning out of the designers hands.

To summarize: The designer’s style of thinking creates suitable concepts forunderstanding the design object. These concepts constitute the framework fordesigning.With these findings, I have gathered support for hypothesis six that states: Anoperational concept of interaction style functions at two levels simultaneously:A: Style is the fundamental sound thinking that guides the designer and userin evaluation.B: A style may be described by identifying characteristics of artifacts andactions, as exemplars of the underlying sound thinking.

This means that style is apparent in products and actions, and accessiblethrough models because they represent values and ways of thinking aboutinteraction. And it means that the designer’s style of thinking may beidentified through these models.

5.0 Proposal for a Theory of Discursive InteractionDesign

In this chapter, findings from chapters, three and four are synthesized into aproposal for a Theory of Discursive Interaction Design. It is formulated as aDiscourse Map that describes ways of developing an understanding ofinteraction. The Discourse Map is inspired by the Domain Theory ofTechnical Systems in Engineering Design. It is based on mapping models thatdescribe interaction by both designers and users. The models are analyzed forthe discourses they contribute to. This makes it possible to follow thedesigners navigational decisions during the design process. The chapterexplains my arguments for four interaction domains and the discursiverelationship between the domains. Finally, it presents examples of modelswithin each domain.


“Today there is a wide measure of agreement ... that the stream of knowledgeis heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to lookmore like a great thought than like a great machine"

James Jeans

"The Mysterious Universe", Macmillan, New York 1930

PROPOSAL FOR A THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN 169

5.1 Why build a discussion of interaction design ondomains and models?The studies of interaction, quality and style in the previous chapters indicatethat interaction is influenced by complex relationships between psychological,social and physical phenomena in a manner that has not yet been adequatelydescribed in the natural sciences. Breaking knowledge about interaction downinto properties and degrees of design freedom like Hede Markussen has doneseems impractical. Such a level of detailing requires knowledge about therelationships between interaction phenomena, product properties, and thecorrect design procedures for developing them. Such knowledge is notcurrently present. The lack of formal scientific descriptions of the relationshipbetween interaction phenomena and product properties leaves us looking forother means of structuring our understanding of interaction design.In chapter 4, I found that structuring interaction subjectively by the nature ofits style is impractical because style theory is too diverse and unclearlydelimited to provide a stable, formal system of description. However it isfound the designers style of thinking will account for many differentapproaches to designing for interaction. Since there are so many differentunderstandings of interaction, as Hede Markussen has shown, it becomesintuitively reasonable to attempt ordering them by lumping them into separateareas of knowledge, i.e. domains. Ehn et.al’s application of Habermas’ threeforms of rationality to the problem of describing interaction, quality and styleseems a good approach because it is neutral to specific knowledge aboutinteraction. It allows for categorization and comparison of many differentdescriptions of interaction and many different interaction design procedures.It also allows for a discussion of the designer’s style of thinking because ithighlights the type of reasoning and argumentation that is being used.However dividing all kinds of interaction-related descriptions and argumentsinto three does not provide enough detail for an operative discussion. Ehnet.al’s approach does not categorize different design procedures, differentmethods or models of the design object beyond dividing them into three. Ehnet.al say that style is finding the right balance between the three forms ofrationality, but they do not explain the criteria for the right balance. Anapproach that differentiates better between types of interaction phenomenaand the designer’s procedures for working with them would solve thisproblem.

In the introduction to engineering design theory in chapter 1.3, I describedthe Domain Theory of Technical Systems. It organizes the designer’sknowledge of technical systems into four domains. The knowledge isrepresented in the domains, in the form of models of the design object. Themodels are graded by their degree of abstraction or concrete-ness and bytheir degree of simplicity or complexity (Figure 73). These two dimensionsconstitute two orthogonal axis in a map of models. When models are placed inthe domains and connected in the order by which they are used, thedesigner’s navigational decisions and his or her development of anunderstanding for the design object becomes apparent. It becomes possible todiscuss the model’s value and applicability to the design task.Using the designer’s models of interaction, frees us from creating a formalscientific description of interaction itself. Any model the designer creates tounderstand interaction may also be used as the basis for a discussion ofquality and style. It becomes possible to follow the development ofknowledge and discuss the style of thinking of designers in the young andrapidly evolving field of interaction design.


Figure 73: Models of a machine part in various degrees of abstraction and simplification (fromBuur 1990)

In the Quality in Use project, it was proposed that good interaction qualityresults from finding the proper balance between objective, social andsubjective forms of rationality. However, no suggestion was given as to whatmight constitute a suitable balance. By understanding different designer’snavigational decisions and models of interaction a discussion about the bestprocedure and the most valuable aspects of models may result in a betterunderstanding of a suitable balance.

Although studying designers models of interaction frees us from having tocreate a formal description of interaction, it is still necessary to developdomains that categorize knowledge interests. The domain theory of technicalsystems does not explicate a social or aesthetic rationality, but serves well for acomplete objective description of the design object. Therefore, I will not try tomodify this large structure of thought. Such a project would constitute alifetime of work, because one would have to approach the rational premisesthat the whole field is based on. Instead, I would like to build on the positiveoperational attributes of the domain theory of technical systems. It is a way ofdescribing the designers understanding of the design object by showing whichmodels the designer uses in his work. And it is a way of describing thenavigational choices taken in the design process because it is possible to tracethe design process through a series of models.In stead I will propose a Theory of Discursive Interaction Design. It will becomplementary to the domain theory of technical systems: The Theory ofDiscursive Interaction Design will focus solely on the social and subjectiveforms of reasoning since these are not covered by the domain theory oftechnical systems and because we have seen that the users experience ofinteraction is primarily a layer of intention, interpretation and emotion setapart from the physical effects in a transformation system.


5.2 The Theory of Discursive Interaction Designdescribes the users perspectiveAt the start of this study, a working hypothesis was that it should be possibleto add human activity to the domain theory of technical systems. Byexpanding the domains validity to embrace the complete transformationsystem, I would open up for an integration of ergonomic models of humansand actions (Øritsland 1995). In a literature study on ergonomic task analysisI found that human activity was usually broken down into three or fourperspectives. The common denominators of these perspectives were Job,Activity, Task and Operation (Vavik & Øritsland 1997 pp. 99-119). Theseperspectives were based on seeing actions in a similar way to the domains oftechnical systems. I explored the operational validity of the idea byattempting to describe actual activities within such a framework. For example:• The job perspective described human activity as a process system. Often in

connection with the planning or analysis of work in an industrial processplant.

E.g. A job could be to be an urban bicycle courier. This job depends on asystem of customers and a central dispatch, as well as the environmentalconditions of cycling in the city. There is a flow of information, materialand energy through the system in the form of phone calls, radio dispatchcalls, bicyclists, packages and money

• The activity perspective describes the individual activities each person mustdo to fulfill his or her job specification. But like the technical systemdomain of functions in relationship to the technical system domain ofprocesses, there are different combinations of functions that may realizethe same transformations.

E.g. An activity for the bicycle courier could be to collect a package, plan thetrip, cycle, inform the dispatch office of the route to see if other parcelscould be picked up on the way, deliver the parcel, collect payment, etc.,Alternatives might be to handle each delivery separately or to collect manyparcels on one side of town first, to bill the receiver or the sender, to take alunch break under way or in between etc.

• The task perspective describes possible actions to complete an activity,much like deciding on organs in a technical system

E.g. The bicycle courier must study the traffic situation and improvisedepending on the actions of others, pedestrians, cars, roadwork etc. Theparcel might be carried in a pocket in a backpack, on a rack or in a box onthe bicycle depending on what else is carried and how the courier wishes tocarry things.

• The operation perspective describes the psycho-motoric and cognitiveprocesses necessary for realizing each task

E.g. The bicycle must be pedaled, steered, braked, balanced; the cyclist mustreact to signals and perceptions from the environment.

However, when exploring examples like the one above, I found that tasks andoperations were too arbitrary and complex to provide practical means ofanalysis. There did not seem to be any obvious causal relationships betweenthe levels. The user was free to decide on different courses of action, and tomodify, change or abort them underway. The impulse for changing theprocess could come from any part of the action. I.e. the user was notpreprogrammed to act in the way a machine was. By studying the literature onergonomic task analysis (Kantowitz & Sorkin 1983), (Grandjean 1986),(Wilson & Corlett 1990), (Cushman & Rosenberg 1991), (Kirwan &


Ainsworth 1992), (Sanders & McCormick 1993) I concluded that taskanalysis is best suited to high level analysis of complete work processes or toisolated detailed studies in working environments where activity is pre-planedand procedural, so that a degree of stability is attained. When designing forinteraction we also need a way of understanding the occasional anduninformed use of consumer products and the user who is playing orexploring.I found an alternative to the four perspectives on task analysis in cognitivesystems engineering. Rasmussen et.al (1994) propose parallel levels of humanand machine properties and a combination of top down and bottom up designapproaches.

MATCHHUMAN AND JOB

HU MAN

Val ues, N eeds

Informati onProce ssing

Ps ychologicalmechani sms

Physi ology

A nthropom etry

S Y S TEM

Purpose

Functi on

Process

Form

Readabilitybefore

problemsolving

Functionalrightness

beforeergonomics

Bottom-upempiricalevaluation

Top -downanalytic

evaluation

Figure 74: Match between a human and a machine system. (after Rasmussen et.al. 1994)

But Hede Markussen (1995p112) finds that Rasmussen’s proposal isinadequate for describing conceptualization in interaction design because itleaves out factors such as knowledge allocation and interaction principles. I.e.focusing on either the Human system or the Technical system in isolation. Asmy studies of the theory of technical systems and theories of human systemscontinued it became clear that there are some fundamental incompatibilitiesbetween interaction and a mechanistic study of systems which are bestovercome by the application of phenomenological, aesthetic and semiotictheory. As described in chapter 3, I found that interaction is an interplaybetween human and technical systems in a context. Both systems must bestudied together because interaction is the result of the meaning they createtogether. Since I could not draw direct parallels between interaction and thefour domains of technical systems, what remained was the inspiration of usingthe mapping formalism of the domain theory of technical systems because ofits operational value. The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design isdescribed by means of a Discourse Map inspired by the domain theory oftechnical systems


5.3 The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design sortsunderstanding into four domainsThe Theory of Discursive Interaction Design that I will propose here isdescribed by means of a Discourse Map inspired by the domain theory oftechnical systems. However, the Discourse Map is based on phenomenologyand therefore does not describe technical systems or humans as organismsprecisely in the terminology of objective science or the WDK school oftechnical systems theory. The relationship between the design object, itsmodels and the user's perception of them is fundamentally different from thedomain theory of technical systems. As Heidegger says in “The Thing”(1971pp165-171), an object in the scientific sense can only be what its system ofknowing allows. Heidegger differentiates between the Thing, its realization asan artifact and the scientific objectification of it. Figure 75 illustrates thatbehind the model/object relationship used in engineering design there lies afundamental Thing that the user experiences incompletely, or distorted in anactual product but which is fundamental to both the designer’s and the user’sunderstanding and interpretation of the product. In this sense, both model andobject are representations of some aspects of the Thing. The designerdevelops models to understand how best to realize the Thing. The phenomenaand properties described in multiple models are then transferred to the objectto make a final representation of the Thing. For example, Heidegger statesthat the potter/designer forms the clay of a jug around the void that is thejug’s holding nature, its essence as a Thing.Models and objects in the domains of interaction capture some aspects of theexperience of the Thing moderated by the material properties by which it isrealized.

Figure 75: The phenomenological relationship between Thing, Object, and Model. The Thingis a fundamental experience that the designer represents in a Model. The Object is the sum of

factual statements about an ideal objective representation of the Thing.

At the center ofFigure 76 below actual interaction is understood as Heidegger’s Being-in-the-world (Dasein). Making sense of our being in the world forces us - no, throwsus on a course of creating action and meaning. In continuation of this line ofthinking we come to Jürgen Habermas theory of communicative action, whichis the basis for Ehn et.al’s description of interaction style and this Theory ofDiscursive Interaction Design. A communicative act is an act where theparticipants coordinate their attempts at agreement. There is an element ofevaluation in this. Participants will continually see whether they can acceptand understand what is happening and modify their actions or withdraw asseems fit (Johansen & Larsen 1994 p102). For instance, the speech act ofsaying “ it is a button” simultaneously defines a part of an interface as abutton, creates the act of pressing, the feeling of pressing and establishes anorm for the button in a social context. Due to this circular, discursive,relationship the directions of the axis in the Theory of Discursive Interaction


Design have taken on a meaning of their own, in addition to their meaning inthe domains of technical systems.The domains in the Discourse Map have a circular, discursive relationship.This means that each domain is defined by the way it differs from the othersin explaining the same phenomenon. Since all four domains of interaction arerelated to one another and describe different aspects of the same phenomena,it is a challenge to convey all the relationships in the linear format of a book.I have chosen a presentation where I gradually build up the completeDiscourse Map while presenting the Theory of Discursive Interaction Designin order to give the reader an overview.

SocialRationality

SubjectiveRationality

Individual

Life-world

IntentionalDomain

Interactiongestalt

Domain

InterfaceDomain

SocialDomain

Interaction

Figure 76: The domains of the Theory of Discursive Interaction Design

The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design encompasses the four domainsinFigure 76. I will make a preliminary introduction in clockwise order, startingat the upper right:1. The interface domain describes those properties of artifacts and the

environment that are perceptible to the human user as possibilities forinteraction. Or more precisely, the totality of experiences accessible to theuser.

2. The interaction gestalt domain describes kinesthetic thinking aboutinteraction experiences. According to Svanes, interaction gestalts are thebasic building blocks of our understanding of interaction (See chap. 3.2).The interaction gestalt domain is primarily individual, it maps thoseexperiences to which the user has privileged access

3. The intentional domain maps projective or retrospective accounts ofaction. Individuals use expression of intent as a way of orienting theiractions towards goals before acting or as a way of describing the outcomeof actions they are thrown into.


4. The social domain concerns interactions as norms and value systemsregulating the events of a social process. The totality of all legitimatelyregulated interpersonal relations.

SocialRationality


Individual

Life-world

IntentionalDomain

Interactiongestalt

Domain

InterfaceDomain

SocialDomain

Interaction

Abstraction

Simplification Simplification

Abstraction

Figure 77: The dimensions of the interaction domains. Actual interaction takes place in thecenter. It comprises all four dimensions

The Discourse Map consists of four dimensions from a center in which actualinteraction takes place. But there is not a smooth transition from the centeroutwards. In the center, fundamental interaction experience lies before thecreation of signs. It is a unity that explodes into unlimited semiosis13 and acomplexity of concrete observations as we try to describe its components.As we begin thinking of what is happening we will employ combinations ofHabermas’ three forms of rationality to explain our experiences. We willmake simplifications to suit the form of rationality we are employing in eachinstance.

In the Discourse Map the horizontal axis separates the dimension of a socialrationality from the dimension of a subjective rationality. Both axis go frominfinite complexity in the center, out towards monosemic14 simplifications atthe outer ends. The degree of simplification is relevant to a discussion of

13 Semiosis is the process of sign creation. At the same moment that we ask about thecontents of Pierce’ interpretant, we are placing it as a primary sign in a new signrelationship and so on ad infinitum. (Jørgensen 1994 p.25)14 Monosemic meaning something with a single interpretation as opposed to polysemic,which means something with multiple interpretations


interaction design because it indicates how much information about the actualinteraction experience is available to the designer.

The objective form of rationality is excluded from the map although I willrefer to it in this presentation for clarity and comparison. I propose thatengineering design applies the objective form of rationality. Consequently Ican assume that interactions may be described with an objective rationality bythe domain theory of technical systems15. The three forms of rationality aredescribed by Habermas like this: “Normatively regulated actions (socialrationality) and expressive self representations (subjective rationality), havelike assertions or constantive speech acts (objective rationality) the characterof meaningful expressions understandable in their context, which areconnected to criticizable validity claims. Their reference is to norms andsubjective experiences rather than to facts” (Habermas 1984 Vol.1 p.15) “…the knowledge embodied in normatively regulated actions or in expressivemanifestations does not refer to the existence of states of affairs but to thevalidity of norms or to the manifestations of subjective experiences. With theseexpressions the speaker can refer not to something in the objective world butonly to something in the common social world or in his own subjective world”(Habermas 1984 Vol.1 p.16). “It is the actors themselves who seek consensusand measure it against truth, rightness and sincerity, that is, against the “fit”or “misfit” between the speech act, on the one hand, and the three worlds towhich the actor takes up relations with his utterance, on the other. Suchrelations hold between an utterance and;1. The objective world (as the totality of all entities about which true

statements are possible)2. The social world (as the totality of all legitimately regulated interpersonal

relations)3. The subjective world (as the totality of the experiences of the speaker to

which he has privileged access)(Habermas 1984 Vol.1 p.100)

The vertical axis in Figure 77 differentiates between a dimension of individualexperience and meaning at the bottom, and a dimension of mutuallyrecognized phenomena, common to many people at the top. Habermasprovides a summary of the process of establishing a common consensus basedon individual assertions: “…actions regulated by norms, expressive selfrepresentations, and also evaluative expressions, supplement constantivespeech acts in constituting a communicative practice which, against thebackground of a life-world, is oriented to achieving, sustaining, and renewingconsensus – and indeed a consensus that rests on the inter-subjectiverecognition of criticizable validity claims. The rationality inherent in thispractice is seen in the fact that a communicatively achieved agreement mustbe based in the end on reasons. And the rationality of those who participatein this communicative practice is determined by whether, if necessary, theycould, under suitable circumstances, provide reasons for their expressions”(Habermas 1984 Vol.1 p.17). 15 The objective rationality is comprised of factual statements in constantive speech acts.I.e. defining characteristics of the world by the truthfulness of objective observations ofthem. Although the domain theory of technical systems is focused on machines it couldvery well be expanded to describe humans and the environment as long as one limitsdescriptions to the type this form of thinking allows. In fact there are a number ofimplicit assumptions, notably in the domains of processes and functions that could wellbe ascribed to the human system rather than the technical.


As we begin to describe interaction along these two axes, we will recognizeour selves as rational when our meanings and experiences stem from somerepresentation that is similar to that of other individuals. For instance, toexemplify a subjective rationality, Habermas sites Richard Norman: “To wantsimply a saucer of mud is irrational, because some further reason is neededfor wanting it. To want a saucer of mud because one wants to enjoy its richriver-smell is rational. No further reason is needed for wanting to enjoy therich river-smell, for to characterize what is wanted as “to enjoy the rich river-smell” is itself to give an acceptable reason for wanting it, and therefore thiswant is rational” (Norman 1971).Making a simple and purely personal assertion about an interactionexperience means having to abstract it. Using Norman’s example, anindividual could say “When I hold the saucer, I feel the potential of the mudgoo-ing out over my desk!” This statement, and the terms “potential” and“g o o ” are representations and abstractions of two affordances of mud. Anaffordance in Gibsonian16 terms being interpreted as a fundamentalunderstanding of mud’s ability to make a mess on a desk. The personuttering the statement chooses the terms “potential” and “g o o ” for theirability to isolate and generalize the subjective experience that iscommunicated. We might smile at this statement because, although it isreasonable, it is far from an expected, mutually agreed subjective statementabout a saucer of mud in an office environment. This identifies it as aprimarily individual abstraction. A more common, and hence mutually agreedstatement would be that a saucer of mud seems out of place in an officeenvironment. This statement would then belong to the domain of interfaces.

The distance from the center along the vertical indicates the degree by whichthe rationality claim is abstracted from actual primary experience. Forinstance it would be a richer and more meaningful argument for theinteraction experience of holding a saucer of mud if I could actually presentone to you, the reader, in stead of talking about it. The degree of abstractionis therefore important to describing a design process because it indicates towhat degree the designer has primary access to similar experiences.

5.4 The relationship between the domains is discursiveThe phenomenological inseparability of individuals and their life-worldindicates that we will find other relationships between the domains of theDiscourse Map, than the causal relationships between the domains of technicalsystems. While technical systems are described in terms of cause and effect,interaction systems are described in terms of the creation of meaning –semiosis. As I have shown previously the creation of a sign according toPierce is a process of interpretation. The sign is the result of someoneidentifying something, attaching meaning to it and presenting it forinterpretation and discussion. Like in the following dialog:“It is a sports car!” ”Why do you say so?” “Well, look at its sleek lines andfresh color, it looks like it’s going fast even when it’s standing at the curb!”“But shouldn’t sports cars have fat tires and a spoiler to hold the road well?And anyway, real sports cars should be red, all Ferraris are red!” “Yea, but Ibet its fun to drive. Sitting so low down, in the center of the car with thosebucket seats holding you, you could take a turn really fast, feeling in fullcontrol. And besides it’s a fun color!”

16 James Gibsons “Theory of affordances” is a primary work in ecological psychology


The concept of discourse is built on the idea that all signs, including words areactions among other actions. Discourse, in the semiotic meaning, happenssimultaneously at three levels (Johansen & Larsen 1994):1. The sign as a material phenomenon is a part of a sign system and it is

situated in a context. Discourse localizes where meaning is happening intime and space.

2. A sign is the beginning of a dialog. A word for example, is a speech actthat establishes and focuses the subjective positions for a semiotic process.

3. The dialog happens in an institutionalized situation. Discourse delimits theuniverse where meaning may be understood, and where one can decide ifit is relevant.

Communicative action is one of three perspectives on discourse (Johansen &Larsen 1994 p102):1. As mentioned already, phenomenological discourse focuses on the

subjective intentions that are involved in the discursive process. Signs inuse orients subjects towards each other in a possible dialog and in arelationship to the world before conscious intent of a dialog.

2. Sociological discourse builds on the idea that signs in use define theuniverse which in turn defines and makes apparent the power relationshipsbetween subjects and ties together understanding and validity.

3. Structuralistic discourse analysis is based on the idea that signs simplycannot avoid being organized in relationship to a situation. Signs are notin a system, signs and the system happen together

Interaction gestaltDomain

SocialRationality


Individual

Life-world

IntentionalDomain

SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Howdoes

it feel

Whoam I

What am I doing

What is it

Interaction

Figure 78: Examples of fundamental discursive issues between the domains of the DiscourseMap

Each dimension in the Discourse Map of the Theory of Discursive InteractionDesign (Figure 78) is delimited by a discourse between two domains of


interaction. I will describe them in clockwise order starting, again, in the upperright hand corner.

Discourses differentiating the interface domain from the interaction gestaltdomainA subjective rationality is dependent on individuals reaching agreement onaesthetic value judgements about primary experiences. When expressing thevalues experienced in the meeting of object and subject, and the formulationof conscious thought about this meeting the user will ask: How does it feel todo this? How do I feel about this?

Human senses pick out precepts as a result of there being something “ou tthere”. What this something is, is strongly influenced by what we expect tofind, based on previous experience. Describing how we come to develop acommon visual style of expression, Dondis says that“...social patterns, thebehavior of, with and towards each other, and, as a group towards others,have enormous influence on perception and expression also. Perceptions areformed by belief, religion, and philosophy; what you believe has tremendouscontrol over what you see. The ruling class and those who are ruled, politicaland economic factors, all work together to influence perception and shapeexpression. Altogether, politics, economics, the environment, the socialpatterns create a group psyche. These same kinds of forces that develop intoindividual languages in verbal usage, combine in the visual mode into ashared style of expression (Dondis 1993 pp. 128 - 132).What we expect to experience is also based on mutual consent. If I say “claphands” I expect others to refer to an experience that is very similar to myown, when I am clapping my hands. In this way we develop a commonrepertoire of artifacts and situations that refer to and afford certain interactionexperiences. These constitute the domain of interfaces as it is delimitedtowards interaction gestalts.

Discourses differentiating the interaction gestalt domain from the intentionaldomainIndividual actions are delimited by a discourse between experiences andintentions. The user will ask: What does this do for me? How did this happen?What am I doing?No matter how established a consensus is about an object, all perceptions areindividual. Each person will have his or her personal experiences to draw onand his or her personal idiosyncrasies. There is a potential for divergentinterpretations of, objectively speaking, the same sensor input. This creates thesecond set of discursive relationships, the discourse surrounding interactiongestalts.In chapter 3.4 I examined a paper in which Svanes (1997) proposed the term"...Kinesthetic Thinking to signify direct cognitive operations on tactile-kinesthetic sense experiences, i.e. on Interaction Gestalts”. These ideas weresupported by Lakoff (1987), Johnson (1987), and Laban (1988). Tactilekinesthetic sense experiences are the direct result of the interactiverelationship between an interface and a human. The cognitive operations thatthese sense experiences are put through constitute acts of defining theexperiences in terms of actions. This is the discursive relationship betweeninteraction gestalts and intentions. Based on Laban’s theories, Svanes statesthat: "In the context of interaction design, Kinesthetic Thinking involves notonly "a sensibility for movement", but also a sensibility for orchestratedresponses to movement, i.e. interaction" With this statement he pulls intention


onto a scene that in dance could be purely expressive, without any meaningbeyond exploring the values of experiences of movement.

Out of theorizing about the fundamental nature of consciousness and thecreation of signs, comes the phenomenological concept of thrownness:Winograd & Flores (see page 24) say that: "You cannot avoid acting" At anymoment our actions effect the situation, even if we do not do anything. We arethrown into a course of action, because stopping to reflect is also a course ofaction we must therefore trust our instincts at the moment to deal withwhatever comes up. They also state that "Language is action” I.e.: each timewe speak we are creating the objects and properties by virtue of making theutterance. Similarly, others interpret the results of our actions: “Everyrepresentation is an interpretation” Winograd & Flores say: Even inhindsight our analysis can not be objective, other people will have otherunderstandings. This means that the effects of actions cannot be predicted. Wecannot count on careful rational planning to find steps that will achieve ourgoals because it is impossible to know exactly how our actions will effectother people In an after-the-fact analysis we will observe that there weresignificant patterns of objects, properties and relationships. But they were notapparent at the moment of taking place. In “Situated action, how we thinkand act” Lucy Suchman proposes the term situated action, to operationalizethis idea. Situated action “...underscores the view that every course of actiondepends in essential ways upon the material and social circumstances. Ratherthan attempting to abstract action away from its circumstances and representit as a rational plan, the approach is to study how people use theircircumstances to achieve intelligent action. Rather than build a theory ofaction out of a theory of plans, the aim is to investigate how people produceand find evidence for plans in the course of situated action. More generally,rather than subsume the details of action under the study of plans, plans aresubsumed by the larger problem of situated action.”(Suchman 1987 p50)

The discourse between the intention domain and the interaction gestaltdomain is the process of finding evidence of plans in the course of situatedactions.

Discourses differentiating the intentional domain from the social domainA social rationality is delimited by a discourse between the personal intentionsof the individuals partaking in a society, and collectively agreed, social norms.The discourse is about finding an identity and meaning in a relationship withothers. The user of a product might ask: How do I describe my self with thisaction? or: Who am I that uses this product?

Laurel (1991) studies computers as a media for representing actionpossibilities in the same way that theater does. The graphical screen is similarto the stage settings, she says, and both user and the objects in the computerare actors playing their roles in a drama. She describes HCI in relation toAristotle's “Poetics” where it is stated that a play is an organic whole, definedby six qualitative elements of drama. She suggests that there is a relationshipbetween them in terms of a formal and a material causality. At the top level ofthe whole action, a sequence of actions unfold within a set of probable actionsshe calls “...the flying wedge of interactive form...”. The wedge illustrates theprogression of a plot from the possible via the probable to the necessaryactions.


Table 13: The six qualitative elements of structure in drama and in human computer activity(Laurel 1993)

Element In drama In human computer activityAction The whole action being

represented. The action istheoretically the same inevery performance

The whole action, as it iscollaboratively shaped by systemand user. The action may vary ineach interactive session

Characters Bundles of predisposition'sand traits, inferred fromagents patterns of choice

The same as in drama, butincluding agents of both human andcomputer origin

Thought Inferred internal processesleading to choice:cognition, emotion, andreason.

The same as in drama, butincluding agents of both human andcomputer origin

Language The selection andarrangement of words, theuse of language.

The selection and arrangement ofsigns, including verbal, visual,auditory and other non-verbalphenomena when usedsemiotically.

Melody(Pattern)

Everything that is heard,but especially the melodyof speech.

The pleasurable perception ofpattern in sensory phenomena.

Enactment Everything that is seen. The sensory dimensions of theaction being represented: visual,auditory, kinesthetic and tactile, andpotentially all others.

According to this theory, the whole action is understood as a sign with alimited number of interpretations (the flying wedge) and each of thecomponent meanings may be broken down towards inferred properties ofactors, their character or natural predisposition to act, resulting in a complexof norms defined by properties of actions and objects. I propose that thesocial domain is comparable to the two top levels, the flying wedge ofinteractive form in which the story of interaction unfolds. The action, plot and"form" of the interaction, and the characters' pre-dispositions to do things in acertain way contain prepared norms and ethics the playwright or the designerwants to build upon.Going the other way following Laurel and Aristotle’s material causality, fromthe bottom up, we move from the domain of interfaces – which is all that isseen. Via the domain of interaction gestalts – which is the perception ofpatterns in sensory phenomena and their utterance as meaningful language.To, finally, intentional actions – which are the inference of thought andchoice. We are back at the lower perimeter of the social domain of thecharacters predispositions, traits, and patterns of choice and to normativestatements about action.

These discourses are also present in theories of needs and personality. Forinstance, Freud's concept of Ego as a mediator between Id, the unconsciousprimal urges and Super-ego, the moral norms present in each individual orMazlow’s relationships between primary needs and the needs for social statusand self-fulfillment.

FormalCause

Material Cause


In real life, it is also easy to see the discourse: We are always immersed in theplay of acting out our own life. Our real-life character and the thoughts andlanguage we use are developed in a dialog with a stage and with actors outsideour control. We are not playwrights and only have limited authority asdirectors. Our own ideas of how we want to develop our role character, anddefine it in relation to our surroundings will continually be tempered by theway the rest of the play unfolds about us.

Discourses differentiating the social domain from the interface domainThe life-world is delimited by a discourse between systems of meaning. Onone hand the world is understood as comprised of conventions and norms ofaction (Social domain), on the other it is comprised of signs of opportunitiesfor action (Interface domain). For instance the fashion industry producingclothing, interiors, movies etc, are exploiting the fact that we are collectivelyseeking ways of expressing our norms in relation to the physical world ofobjects: What is this thing? What is valuable about this artifact? What does itrepresent?

In Winograd “Bringing design to software” (1996), Reinfrank & Evensondescribe the components of HCI in terms of a design language as:• Collections of elements• Organizational principles• Collections of qualifying situationsThey state that design languages are generative - they need interaction andsocial mechanisms for their revision: “Traditional conceptions of languagehave seen meaning as strictly associated with form and style, relativelyindependent of context. Design languages can be used most effectively whenmeaning is seen not just as the built-in sense of an object, but also as thequality of sense-making that objects have and can produce, especially withrespect to their surroundings. In other words, doing design requires morethan making meaningful objects; it requires crafting whatever it is aboutobjects that lets them participate in the creation of meaningful experiences.According to this view of meaning, the sense of an object cannot be separatedfrom the experience that the object simultaneously sits in and helps to create”(Winograd 1996 p69).

Both the visual and verbal vocabulary are ways of documenting or modelingsubjective experiences. When the vocabulary is used in a way that is consistentwith common practice, we feel reasonably sure that our statements will beexcepted. This discursive exchange is conspicously lacking in the field of art.A work of art tries to break free from norms in some respect and exist only asexperience. It is the development of a shared way of expression that definesthe interface domain relative to the social domain. When designing we choosea vocabulary of artifacts in which interpretation of the prominent propertiesemphasize our common norms. This is what product semantics is about;choosing forms that are socially defined as representing something, and at thesame time using them to emphasize the action. For instance: A sports car is acar for having fun in, rather than for practical use. Lack of luggage spacetherefore contributes to defining a sports car from a social perspective. Froma subjective interface point of view, not being able to carry baggage makeshaving fun with a sports car a quick and impulsive act. One does not think ofbaggage and sports cars together and this helps strengthen the wantedexperience. The premises for the cars use (socially) excludes baggage from itsscope of interaction experiences (subjectively).


5.5 How to use the Discourse MapTo summarize the elements of the Theory of Discursive Interaction Designpresented, so far: The designer and the user both interpret an activity with anartifact in relation to their internal conception of the fundamental Thing, inHeidegger’s sense. As soon as an attempt at communication is made, aninterpretation process is started. Some kind of model is used to establish acommunicative action. The term model is used in the widest conceivablesense, synonymously to a sign because it is the ability of the model torepresent some aspect of the complete interaction experience that is ofimportance. Models could be speech statements, written words ormathematical formulae, real actions, video recordings or the making ofdiagrams, drawings, objects, etc. Any statement of this sort must be asimplification or abstraction of the real interaction.The simplifications may be understood as arguments or validity claims withina subjective or a social rationality. The degree of simplification, beingmapped along the horizontal axis of the Discourse Map, indicates how muchinformation is accessible to the designer.Furthermore the models may be categorized by their degree of abstraction ordistance from actual experience. This is mapped along the vertical axis in theDiscourse Map. The vertical axis indicates the degree by which the designerhas access to a similar personal experiences.There is a discursive relationship between the domains because anycommunicative act will establish a starting point for a discourse. I.e. anyinteraction experience may be modeled and interpreted in all four domainswhether the designer intends this or not.At this point the power of the Theory of Discursive Interaction Design as atool for analyzing, discussing, and developing interaction design becomesevident. From an interaction design perspective, the development of a productis the means or media for communicating interaction intentions and thesubjective and social story surrounding an interaction. Since interaction is aprocess of generating meaning, the designers primary tasks will be tonegotiate a common understanding between user, producer and designer, andto learn enough to be able to generate new meaning and evaluate newpossibilities for communicating it. The models the designer uses may beunderstood as signs that initiate and focus a discourse. The discourse may beinternal to the designer, as is the case when the designer “talks with thepaper”, using a series of attempts at illustrating an idea with pen and paper tohelp focus a personal understanding of an idea. The discourse may bebetween colleagues in order to create a common understanding of goals,concepts or visions, or it may be a dialog between designers, users andmanufacturers to agree on the interpretations and value systems that guide thedesign process.

The following figures and Discourse Map exemplify the relationship betweenmodels and discourse and illustrate how the Discourse Map is used:A fashion magazine image such as Figure 79 supplies information about therelationship between social statements and material qualities, visual aestheticeffects and actions. Although the pictures are of people in certain poses, withcertain artifacts does not mean that it is the action or the artifact that is theprimary goal of the picture. The pose is a sign of an action, with a socialinterpretation and the artifact is a carrier of signs about kinestheticexperiences. It is the experience and the social statement that the poses andthe artifacts signify that are the objects of design in the picture. In an analysisprocess the designer may break these down into single abstracted words orcollages of picture elements. To exemplify such a design process I have taken


the discourse the fashion picture establishes, and analyzed it by creatingexpressive words and collages (in Figure 82 and Figure 81).

Figure 79: Promotion picture from Versace Atelier in Vogue Couture, March 1999. Thepragmatic purpose of the picture is to sell womens dresses. The designers intention whenmaking the picture is to make a social and emotional statement that sets the clothes in a

context.


Figure 80: Collage of the three dominant signs from the Versace Atelier picture above: A pose,a pilaster, a wall with stuffed birds and animal sculls.

Embellished, Seductive, Bewitched, Mysterious,Detached, Calm, Self-Assured, Strange, Unnatural,Harmonious, Dangerous, Luxurious, Vulgar.

Figure 81: Expressive words from the Versace Atelier pictures


To use the Discourse Map it is necessary to identify the meaning of themodels the designer is using and the discursive relationships betweenconcurrent or consecutive models. The explication and categorization ofmodels says something about the issues that are being addressed. Togetherwith the discursive relationship between models this analysis says somethingabout the style of thinking that is being used.In the Discourse Map (Figure 82) this knowledge is presented in a graphicnotation: The boxes with text represent models of interaction, while the grayarrows represent discursive relationships. An arrow pointing both waysindicates that the designer is developing both aspects in unison. An arrowpointing one way indicates that the designer is using one model as a basis forformulating the next model.

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract

DetailedIntentionDomain

Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Expressivewords

Fashionmags.

collages

Fashionmags.

Figure 82: Example of mapping a discursive design process. The Versace picture is used tomodel a social and experiencial discourse. I simplified and abstracted my interpretation of the

picture by developing a collage and expressive words in unison.


5.6 Models in the Discourse MapIn this section I will suggest models for each of the four domains, starting withinterfaces and going clockwise through the four domains. I will exemplify allfour dimensions of each domain with models trying to show extremes that willhelp define the boundaries of each domain. I will discuss each model, briefly,describing the relationship between the object and the modeled properties, thepurpose and the users of each model.

IndividualIntentional

Domain

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

SocialRationality

SubjectiveRationalityConcrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Life-world

SimpleDetailedSimple

SimpleDetailedSimple

Interaction

Figure 83: The complete map of the Theory of Discursive Interaction Design

Allocation of models to the domains is not absoluteIn the case of the models I will be presenting here, it is often a goal toreproduce concrete and complex phenomena because designing forinteraction quality requires finding a successful compromise between a largenumber of factors. The models employed are difficult to describe in thetraditional forms of natural science such as algorithms or logical causalities.Therefore they may seem imprecise for describing specific properties of thehuman or the technical system, but they still fulfill their purpose by affordingthe user of the model an empathic understanding of the modeled phenomena.The models described here are not unique to each domain or to a specificlevel of abstraction. This is especially so with very complex models such asactual products in a context of use or physical enactments of activities . Themodels applied to explaining aspects of one dimension in one rationalitymight still be used in all the domains. Where I choose to locate each model,depends on the designer's intentions in using the model. To furthercomplicate the matter, in an early exploratory phase of design it is possible


that the designer’s intentions are vague and that a model is employed for itsability to uncover multiple aspects of the design object.Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an analysis that uncovers the designer’sintentions and discursive application of a model. I will show examples of thisin chapter 6. The same problem is apparent in the domain theory of technicalsystems, if one only looks at the model as the source for defining properties.However, the modeling activity is centered on the object not the model,therefore it is the convention of applying a certain model for describing acertain set of properties that must be the criteria of applicability. In otherwords we must evaluate the relevance of placing a model within a certain areaof a domain based on its purpose and user.

Models in the Interface DomainModels of interfaces are a class of entities in the form of descriptions andrepresentations of Things in Heidegger’s sense. The interface domainorganizes models of interfaces as potential interaction experiences accessiblein the users life-world. The designer uses this way of understandinginteraction to create representations of interaction potential in artifacts.

Product

MM simul. Mockup orPresentationmodel

Styleguide Productinterfacespecification

Designsketches

Interface layout

Interfaceorgans

Product incontext

SimpleAbstract

Detailed


Concrete

InterfaceDomain

Life-world

Figure 84: The interface domain

At the concrete end we find actual product interfaces, on a scale from aproduct in a context of use, to simple individual interface components such asswitches or screens or simply a textured surface. As detailing is lost thesemodels lose their ability to concurrently represent a social rationality, whilethey retain the concreteness that makes them directly experiential to someoneinteracting with them. Moving up the scale of abstraction we find simulationsand mockups that allow a degree of interaction and some real experiences.Finally, at the top we find diagrammatic descriptions of interface, and rulesabout form and behavior.


Product in context of use

Figure 85: Marcel Duchamp explored the significance of an art museum as an art-definingcontext when he displayed a urinal as ready-made art. The property of interest was the limit of

an object's signification as art and the ability of the context to define the product

Concrete and detailed models may be actual products in actual settings butnot being used. The purpose of modeling is to explore the meaning theproduct takes on in a context, and the acceptability of a product in relation tosocial standards and ethics. Intelligibility of form and functions may bestudied in different contexts, by different people. The designer will use thesemodels as a way of understanding the product's significance to others. Thepublic might use it as a way of promoting a debate about suitability ofintroducing a certain product

Interface organs

Figure 86: From a 1998 Macintosh Powerbook G3 brochure.

Any kind of buttons, screens, icons, graphics, keyboards, speakers, mouse,chair, steering wheel, etc. All sub assemblies to be used in a final interface asthey really are may be used as models of experiential qualities such as togglebutton feeling, qualitative aspects of an airplane seat etc.The purpose is to judge actual interface elements for their potential to fulfillrequired interaction experiences. Therefore, users, engineers and designers arethe most probable users.


Multi-media simulations on a computer screen

Figure 87: Arild Sakshaug demonstrates his touch screen interface proposal, simulated inMacromedia Director

The object of computer simulations can be any kind of interface componentsand their behavior The HCI concept of horizontal and vertical prototyping asdescribed by e.g. Nielsen (1993) fits in here as movements on thesimple/detailed axes. The purpose of the model is to describe the properties ofan interface at many different degrees of abstraction and detailing, dependingon which properties are of interest, and which combinations of properties areexpected to influence each other. All stakeholders in the product may usethese models to get an impression of the product from both the social and theexperiential perspectives.

Mockups

Figure 88: A mockup of a Tomra Systems bottle-recycling machine, used for usability testing.

Close-up of the front, and overview of the rear. Three men were necessary for running it as aWizard of Oz prototype.

These are physical models, usually in 1:1 scale and three dimensions. Theyare similar to computer simulations, except that the focus is on physicalinteractions. Usually mockups are vertical prototypes. They focus on detailingonly a few interactions. The purpose of these models can be to describe theproperties of an interface at many different degrees of abstraction anddetailing, depending on which properties are of interest, and whichcombinations of properties are expected to influence each other. Thesemodels are primarily used within the design team and in dialogs with users


Design sketches

Figure 89: Sketch for a multi-function joystick with two modes activated by two differenthandgrips. Designed by Lars Hurlen for Kværneland Underhaug a.s.

Hand drawings or preliminary CAD drawings are a way of modeling e.g.form, color, and arrangement of components. They may be used to explorethe expressive possibilities of form and communicative possibilities ofarrangement and form by the designer and product development team.

Interface layout diagram

Figure 90: Layout principle in an early idea sketch for a remote control by Elizabeth Strand forTandberg a.s.

A drawing of the way an interface is arranged models the physical layout of acontrol panel in the form of simplified symbols, text and outlines of controls.Such a model could be a part of a more detailed style guide, or of a completeproduct specification which specifies one possible application of the styleguide.Users of these models would typically be designers and production planners


Interface specificationAn interface specification may be abstracted and simplified down to a list ofproperties and functions that the interface must support, or it may be ascomplex as a set of detailed models of the interfaces, such as completegraphics, simulations of behaviors, specifications of behavior in written anddiagrammatic form, construction drawings etc. If we are to understand aninterface specification as a single model, it is the first interpretation that mustbe used. This kind of model is used for briefing designers, as a working list ofneeds that must be implemented, and will gradually evolve and be surpassedby collections of more detailed models a work progresses. Users will be allthose involved in the initiation and early phases of a development process,since the purpose of such a document is the definition of the framework forthe project.

Style guideA style guide's purpose is similar to the specification described above, but it isused as a standard of reference, rather than a working document. It thereforeneeds to be precise in describing the principles behind the solutions, so thatpossible deviations from the norm it prescribes may be understood andadjusted to fit within its boundaries. It must therefore be more detailed than aspecification concerning only one product.


Models in the Interaction Gestalt DomainInteraction gestalts are the basic building blocks of our understanding ofinteraction. They result from kinesthetic thinking about interactionexperiences. The interaction gestalt domain maps models of those experiencesto which the user has privileged access.Models of interaction gestalts are a class of entities in the form of descriptionsof interaction experiences.

AbstractSimpleDetailed

Individual


Concrete


Mood-board

Semanticdifferential

Metaphor

Art orsculpture

Documentedinteractionexperiences

Figure 91: Models in the interaction gestalt domain


Art and sculpture

Figure 92: "Few materials are as malleable as clay; few allow the maker to leave the intimacy ofthe gesture of the moment frozen in three dimensions." This example of gestural ceramic form

is by Irene Vonck from Holland. (Dormer 1990)

At the concrete and detailed end, in dialectical relationship with interfacecomponents and intentions, we find for instance art; models, which arerealized purely for the direct confrontation of individuals with actualexperiences. But why have I not put art artifacts in the domain of interfacecomponents? Surely they are things and represent social norms?The object of art is poetry in the Heideggerian sense; the horizon of meaning,the point at which a precept becomes an entity. This is just what the domain ofinteraction gestalts is about; the primary modeling of precepts as they comeinto consciousness Art in its many variations is free to use any material for thepurpose of evoking emotions and reflection on emotion. As such it is thedialectical opponent of the product, one is material purely for the sake of itsexpressive power, the other is the organization of matter for a materialpurpose. What I am saying is that the purpose of art is the exploration of theexpressive potential of matter. Anyone who is interested in nurturing theiraesthetic sensibility may use these kinds of models.

Mood board

Figure 93: Section of a collage by Lars Hurlen for Intervett a.s (1998).

The mood board is a model of the feeling a design is intended to evoke in theviewer, without actually specifying it. The model uses collections of images of


materials, people, situations and locations, usually in the form of collages.Recently multi-media presentations on CD-ROM also use sound and simpletemporal behavior and transitions between images to enhance the model.The purpose of mood boards is to communicate ideas about feelingsconnected to certain complexes of materials etc. They are used by styleanalysts, designers and others with an interest in fashion and the economy ofthe sign

Semantic differential

Figure 94: Comparative analysis of two wristwatches (Design Management Journal Spring’97)

A semantic differential is most commonly a list of bi-polar adjectives with arelative scale between them (Osgood 1952). Three dimensions may be used ine.g. semantic space or even more dimensions like the movement qualitynotation by Laban (Figure 23 on page 55) The purpose is to help usersdefine, quantify, and represent graphically, the experience or meaning ofsome phenomena, usually an object or an image of a product or company.The technique is used in analysis and evaluation by designers and marketingresearchers, and has been applied as a tool for psychological measurements.


Models in the Intentional DomainThe intentional domain maps projective or retrospective accounts of action.Individuals use expression of intent as a way of orienting their actions towardsgoals before acting or as away of describing the outcome of actions they arethrown into. Intentions result from rationalizing sequences of situated actionsin relationship to social normsModels of intentional actions are a class of entities in the form of plans ordescriptions of actions.

SimpleAbstract

Detailed

IndividualIntentionalDomain

SocialRationality

ConcreteUserinterview

Video tape ofobservation

Action

Scenario

HTA orOSD

ObservationReport

Figure 95: Models in the intention domain


Action

Figure 96: Actual actions may be observed or, even more realistically experienced first-hand

Actions constitute instances of interaction that are contextual, situated in timeand place, and may never be repeated exactly the same way. So if a designertakes the place of the user, he will never experience the action in exactly thesame way that the user does, we can therefore say that at best he is developingan extremely detailed model. An observed action constitutes furtherabstraction and simplification since the thoughts of the actor are not directlyavailable, and the kinesthetic experiences and viewpoints are different. Usersand purposes might be designers seeking the widest and deepest possiblequalitative information about an interaction activity.

Video observation protocol

Figure 97: Video protocol from a usability test for Tomra Systems a.s.

Video protocols of actions are used in usability tests, field observations, andother situations where designers or researchers want a comprehensivedocument of events. However, relative to actually participating in an activity, a


video tape abstracts interaction experiences by removing ambient informationfrom the active environment, kinesthetic experience and most seriously forthis domain, the dialog between situational impulses and intentions in theactors are inaccessible to the user of the model. Also the model is asimplification in the sense that the perception of activity is biased by thephotographer’s choice of angle, focus, and other storytelling elements of thevisual image.

Scenario

Figure 98: A transportation design scenario by Synne Dragsund in the 1997 MMI course

Marinetti uses scenario technique in the first part of the Futurist manifesto(see page 202). By describing events and experiences when driving a car, hedevelops a more concrete and individual manifestation of the principlesexpounded in the design manifesto. An even more concrete scenario than awritten one, might employ drawings, video stills or ultimately a dramaperformance. Users will be designers, and the purpose of scenarios will be todevelop personal empathy with situations and actions, or to communicateaction qualities to others, for example to create a dialog with users or to sell anidea to management or the public.

Observation report

Monday meetings are used toallocate manpower resources to theprojects. This is done by argument,and discussion. Some people feelpressured into situations they don'twant, they complain about it butfinally always manage to producewhat is expected of them.

Figure 99: Sample from Lars Hurlen's interviews for Intervett a.s.

Observation reports, or any other kind of report on peoples actions, beingwritten or spoken will contain simplifications and abstractions based on theobservers interpretation of what he or she has seen, and on the need forreducing and adjusting the report to fit the audience, the available time, andthe conceptual world of both the narrator and the listener. What is left isusually objectified information about some of the actions that have takenplace, and biased and edited accounts of the motivations and impulses for theactions.


Hierarchical Task Analysis and Operation Sequence Diagram

Figure 100: An extract from a procedure for a fault in a train. OSD with multiple actors(Kirwan & Ainsworth 1992)

Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) or Operation Sequence Diagrams (OSD)are conventional formats for describing activity in a diagrammatic abstraction.HTA focuses on describing plans and alternatives, while OSD's focus onprogression or a recommended sequence of tasks. Users are ergonomicanalysts or work process planners. The models are primarily an analytic toolfor uncovering the relationship between activities.

Figure 101: Example of Hierarchical Task Analysis (Kirwan & Ainsworth 1992)


Models in the Social DomainThe social domain concerns interactions as norms and ethical value systemsregulating the events of a social process and things in their life-world. Thetotality of all legitimately regulated interpersonal relations.Models in the Social domain are a class of entities consisting of value systemssuch as laws, rules, ethics, morals or utilities.

DetailedSimple

Abstract

SocialRationality

Concrete

SocialDomain

Life-world

Designmanifesto

LawsRulesRegulation

Usercharacterdescription

User profile

Historicdescription

Motionpicture

Figure 102: Models in the social domain


User Profile

Figure 103

A user profile is a categorization of humans in terms of a few personalitytraits, demographic data such as gender, age, anthropometry, education,income etc. The characteristics are easily quantifiable due to their being asmall sample of abstracted properties of our social understanding of otherpeople. Users of such data will be all the stakeholders in a productdevelopment process due to the data being compact and easy to communicateand discuss.

User character descriptions

Figure 104: Student Elizabeth Strands character description in a 1996 MMI course assignment

A character description attempts to convey a more nuanced impression of thehuman beings behind user profile data, by describing the information intypical personal terms in stead of generalizations, e.g. with imaginarycitations, and by showing how the personality traits etc., come to bear ontypical situations. Pictures or drawings of people, places and objects thatcharacterize the user are applied to increase detailing and realism. Users aredesigners, as a tool for gaining empathy with the user and establishing acommon consensus on who the user is.


Design manifesto

“4. We declare that the splendor ofthe world has been enriched by anew beauty - the beauty of speed. Aracing car with its bonnet drapedwith exhaust pipes like fire-breathingserpents - a roaring racing car,rattling along like a machine gun ismore beautiful than the wingedvictory of Samothrace.”

Figure 105: The fourth proposition, of eleven, is the most famous statement about theideological orientation of the Futurists, published in the Foundation Manifesto in LeFigaro 20.

February 1909, the work of Fillipo Tomaso Marinetti. (Banham 1994)

Moving back up in abstraction again, to a medium degree of detailing adesign manifesto is a statement about how a group of people want to interpretand understand their relationship to a type of product or possibly in asituation of use.Users will be design professionals and design philosophers, possibly as amedium for communicating ideas to the public/users. The purpose of such astatement is to position the group in relation to dominant norms, or to initiatea debate about norms, within the field defined by the statement.

Laws, rules, regulations

Article 25:1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequatefor the health and well-being of himself and of his family,including food, clothing, housing and medical care andnecessary social services, and the right to security on theevent of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, oldage or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond hiscontrol.2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special careand assistance. All children, whether born in or out ofwedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Figure 106: Excerpt from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Published by the UnitedNations, 1948-12-10 (http://www.indigo.ie/egt/udhr/udhr-en.html)

Laws, rules and regulations are an extremely detailed complex of abstractmodels of social norms that are made for and apply to social situations,objects and individuals.


A motion picture

Figure 107: Scene from the motion picture "Titanic"

A film is a description of a social situation of great complexity and realism.Users and purposes of a movie as a model will wary greatly because there is somuch information in it. See the citation of Laurel and Aristotle’s elements ofthe play, earlier in this chapter.The reason I have not placed motion pictures in the same domains asintentional actions, is that they usually portray the interactions of a number ofpeople, and meaning results from the dialog that is created. In this sense, themovie, and the play are the closest we can come to modeling the actualdiscourse between individuals and society. But these models remain in thesocial domain, because they are pre-planned.

5.7 Similarities between the Theory of DiscursiveInteraction Design and the Domain Theory of TechnicalSystemsThe Theory of Discursive Interaction Design does not exclude a domaintheory of technical systems. However, they are based on fundamentallydifferent conceptions of reality. The domain theory of technical systems isbased on an objective rationality, while the Theory of Discursive InteractionDesign is based on a social/subjective rationality.

For the reader who is familiar with the domain theory of technical systems adirect comparison will be difficult. I will point out a few superficial similaritiesin order to avoid confusion:• The Discourse Map that is used to explain the Theory of Discursive

Interaction Design is used to categorize and map models in the same wayas in the domain theory of technical systems, however the point is not todescribe causal relationships between models, or to use the models directlyto develop a design artifact. In the Discourse Map the models are markersor fix points that identify the discourse the designer is involved in.

• There are four domains, like in the theory of technical domains, but thenumber is not significant. It has varied between three and five as I haveexplored different possibilities. There is no direct relationship between thefour domains of interaction and the four domains of technical systemsalthough there are similarities that could be worth further discussion. This


discussion would quickly move into the realm of discussing andcomparing fundamental premises and scientific philosophy, which I havechosen to exclude to limit the scope of this thesis.

• The layout of the interaction domains are different. The domain theory oftechnical systems has a linear causal relationship between domains. Onecould argue that the domains of technical systems constitute layers ofabstraction. For instance if we say that a machine must contain a threadedbolt. We are implying that there exists a screwing organ that has thefunction of holding things in relationship to each other as a part of someprocess of positioning. The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design onthe other hand has a discursive relationship in which all the domains aredefined in contrast to the others. Identifying something as an interfacealso describes it as a potential for experience, for action and for socialnorms. On the other hand, some similarities are real, constituting theconnections between different forms of rationality trying to explain thesame phenomena, in their own languages:

• Technical systems are composed of the same components and basicdesign properties that are represented in the interface domain. Here liesthe designer's opportunity for creating a specific interaction and thephysical part of the design.

• The primary functions of a product seen from a technical perspective, arethe results of designers understanding and expectation of user intentions.Later, when the product is being used the product semantics must conveythese intentions to the user and the product must afford the intendedactions. If this system of communication works, one can say that theproduct actually has the intended function.

• The existence of an operand in the transformation system is based on theneeds of people as described with a social rationality of interaction, or ifthey are acute, by the low level needs of Mazlow; possibly a primaryaesthetic rationality driven by simple experiences of pain or deprivation.

5.8 ConclusionIn this chapter the Theory of Discursive Interaction Design has beendeveloped in answer to the major goal of this thesis which called for: “…atheoretical basis for discussions about the constituent elements of interaction,their qualities and the resulting style of the totality.”

The theory of discursive interaction design is a synthesis of a number oftheoretical backgrounds that have been presented and discussed in theprevious chapters. It consists of the following elements:• The idea of structuring knowledge about interaction as domains of

models is based on the Domain Theory of Technical Systems inengineering design.

• The idea of discussing the design process through a succession of modelsa designer uses, originates in engineering design.

• The idea of structuring knowledge about interaction into three forms ofrationality is supported by the Theory of Communicative Action byHabermas, from philosophy and social science.

• The idea of discussing style as the correct balance between Habermasthree forms of rationality originated in the Quality In Use project, inhuman computer interaction.

• The idea of Interaction Gestalts as basic elements of kinesthetic thinkingcome from cognitive psychological research and phenomenology and aresynthesized and applied in human computer interaction


• Sign Theory and Theory of Discourse is supported in Semiotics.• Phenomenological theory as it is applied in architecture and human

computer interaction is based primarily on Heidegger’s philosophicalexplorations of Being.

The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design assumes that the experiencialaspects of interaction, as they are described by the user or the designer,inevitably generates models. The models may be mapped into four domainsof knowledge interests. This allows us to identify qualitative aspects of theusers and designers experience of interaction and to discuss the designersworking procedures and style of thinking.The theory consists of four domains, the domain of interfaces, the domain ofinteraction gestalts, the domain of intentions and the social domain. (Figure83 on page 187). The domains describe subjective and social thinking at boththe individual and the common, life-world levels.The relationship between the domains is discursive. The domains define eachother in a dialectical relationship. It is therefore not possible to find abeginning or end to a line of causal relationships between them.The models are graded by their degree of abstraction and simplification ofthe total interaction experience the are intended to describe.

Since I am not expert in many of the theoretical backgrounds the Theory ofDiscursive Interaction Design is built on, there remains a large task ofconsolidating the theory in relationship to its theoretical backgrounds. For thepurpose of this thesis, however the theory has been proven an operationalproposition by the fact that it has been possible to arrange 26 very differenttypes of models within its domains. I therefore propose that hypothesis fourand five have been defended:Hypothesis four: Interaction models may be organized by whether they reflectindividual or collective interpretations of interaction, and according to howthey reflect a way of thinking”.Hypothesis five: It should be possible to describe and select methods andworking procedures based on a theory that maps models of interactionphenomena.

The next chapter will attempt to verify the theory of discursive interactiondesign by applying it to the analysis of a number of case descriptions.

6.0 Application of the Theory of Discursive InteractionDesign

This chapter uses the Discourse Map as a tool for analyzing styles of thinking,interaction design strategies and the practical navigational decisions ofdesigners. I invite the reader to judge the acceptability of the Theory ofDiscursive Interaction Design in practice as I first present an analysis of thestyle studies from chapter 4.3 to 4.5 and then go into greater detail,describing two cases of empathic, user centered design. In a discussion at theend of the chapter I present a general analysis of the cases. These points leadto arguments for the acceptability of the Theory of Discursive Interaction: Idescribe the major obstacles I encountered when applying the Discourse Map,and argue for the benefits of using it.

APPLICATION OF THE THEORY OF DISCURSIVE INTERACTION DESIGN 209

6.1 Introduction - using the Discourse Map in practiceThe previous chapter presented a proposal for a Theory of DiscursiveInteraction Design in response to the major goal of this thesis, which is: “… todevelop a theoretical basis for discussions about the constituent elements ofinteraction, their qualities and the resulting style of the totality”. In addition,the goal specified that the theory should: “… support a discussion andcomparison of interaction design procedures since design processes, methodsand techniques constitute the road towards realizing the right elements ofinteraction”. To make the theory operational, it has been formulated as aDiscourse Map. This chapter demonstrates how the Discourse Map may beused as a tool for analyzing styles of thinking, interaction design strategiesand the practical navigational decisions of interaction design. I invite thereader to judge the acceptability of the Theory of Discursive InteractionDesign in practice as I first present an analysis of the style studies fromchapter 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 and then go into greater detail, describing two casesof empathic, user centered design. Where the Discourse Map is used toexplain individual design procedures.In a discussion about design strategies at the end of the chapter I present ageneral analysis of the cases and insights about the general design strategiesand development trends of fashion, interaction, engineering and industrialdesign. The chapter concludes with arguments for the acceptability of theTheory of Discursive Interaction: I describe the major obstacles I encounteredwhen applying the Discourse Map, and argue for the benefits of using it.

6.2 An analysis of three levels of style thinking ininteraction designIn chapter 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 I presented empirical and theoretical studies ofHermerén’s proposal, that style would become easier to understand bydividing it into levels, with different criteria of clarity and precision. It wouldalso be easier to understand style, he says if premises, problems andknowledge interests are defined for each level. My empirical studies clearedup some of the premises and problems of practical design work. In thissection I would like to apply the Discourse Map to the task of defining, or atleast indicating the knowledge interests of the three levels.

A Discourse Map of the additive style of thinkingFrom the material in chapter 4.3, I conclude that the quality of the resultsfrom an additive level of style thinking is dependent on the individualdesigner’s sensibility to interaction style issues. The designer only modelscharacteristics of the concrete artifact in the interface domain and on thesimplified behavior of artifacts and individual people in the intention domain.Any discussion of interaction ideas will be implicit in a discussion ofexemplars, heuristics and action intentions. The designer must trust in his orher intuition to isolate the right characteristics to create correct interactionexperiences because the discursive relationships to the social and interactiongestalt domains are undefined. The success of the results is dependent on thedesigner’s ability to develop some personal idea or feel for the totality, andthen explicitly search among acceptable characteristics for a way of realizingit.


Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract

Detailed


SocialRationality


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Life-world

Heuristics

Exemplars

Descriptionof action /intention

Figure 108: An additive level of style thinking uses models of interface heuristics, simpleexamples of interface characteristics and abstracted or simplified models of actions or

intentions.

The Additive style of thinking concentrates on visible interaction phenomena:things and actions that can be seen. The designer must have an emotionalengagement with the interaction to be able to understand what is going on. InHCI the need for such an approach has been understood, this is the reason foremphasizing participatory and user centered design methods, but by using itto augment the current characterizing level of style thinking HCI is movingon to the socio-technical level of style thinking in which both approaches areexplicated.

A Discourse Map of the categorizing style of thinkingLike the additive level of style thinking relied on the designer to say what is agood or right solution, the categorizing level leaves a lot of the responsibilityfor defining a style to the designers understanding of users intentions, to whatthe user should be and what they ought to do in a social domain. Thedesigner also decides what an interaction should feel like in the interactiongestalt domain.However, unlike the additive level, at this level a discussion is possible becausethere is a distance between principle and realization that is bridged by theselection of suitable intentions and the right interface components. But,similarly to the additive level of style thinking, the categorizing level still relieson exemplars of principles and categories for developing an understanding ofthe style. This may be observed in the use of design manifestos such as“Form follows function” and in the multitude of dogmatic writings of theearly modernist period, that built, essentially, on the revolutionary politicalaesthetic of the Bauhaus, but distilled it down to rational principles without the


political and aesthetic goals of the movements earlier years being stated ordeveloped directly.

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract

Detailed

IndividualIntentionDomain

SocialRationality


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Life-world

RulesHistory

User descriptions

Metaphor &Experience word

Guidelines

Functions

Tasks &operations

Components

Figure 109: After defining principles in the social and interaction gestalt domains,possibilities for realizing them are sought in the interface and intention domains

A characterizing approach to style focuses on abstracted and isolatedcharacteristics of interaction, grading them according to individual valuescales. Due to the ease with which they can be isolated and quantified, objectsand actions are important to this style as well as the previous. But byabstracting, the characterizing approach looses the fundamental experience ofthe style and the way these experiences are valued in a social context. Takentogether with simplified and abstracted characteristics of experiences andsocial norms and conventions, this may result in styling - designing withoutsensitivity to the semiotic and affective power of the vocabulary that isemployed.


A Discourse Map of the socio-technical style of thinking

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract

Detailed


SocialRationality


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Life-world

Socio-techstyle

Figure 110

By including both the previous approaches, the socio-technical style ofthinking focuses on both experiencing and describing interaction in all fourdomains. Although this style of thinking is comparable to art by its buildingon primary experience, the socio-technical style of thinking can onlyapproach art, design or style through models, abstractions and physicalrepresentations of the phenomenon itself. Modeling or sign making is neededin order to analyze meaning, object, action and emotion at an abstract level.Being situated in a social context the models must relate to a politicaleconomy of signs that continually judges their social and subjective value. Avalue system based on trade of meaning, will consume meanings, and needsconstant change and improvement for its renewal. This means that even thetheories that are used to explain empirical observations will be representativesof a value system, and must be expected to change.The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design itself represents such a mode ofthinking, at the time of writing, and therefore has a certain value, of limitedapplicability and a limited life expectancy in its current form.


6.3 The Danfoss Smart Window workshop – circling allfour domainsCan we identify and describe the interaction styles related to Danfossproducts, and then extrapolate the results into the future to help create a newproduct where the style and experience of interaction is designed in? How dowe go about designing for a specific interaction style?These questions were addressed in a ten-day interaction style design workshopat Danfoss. The workshop was the start of a conceptual design project with thegoal of proposing a smart tool in the form of a Personal Digital Assistant(PDA) to access computer information in a process plant. The basic idea wasthe metaphor of a portable smart window that would allow the planttechnicians to “see” the goings on inside the plant components withouthaving to communicate with a central control room to get the data orcoordinate their work. In the extreme consequence such a Smart Windowcould abolish control rooms. Such a product would drastically change theworking procedures and relationships between plant operators. Therefore,addressing the issue of interaction style might contribute to creating a productthe users would accept and feel comfortable using.My style of thinking when planning the workshop was Socio-technical. I didnot have the sensitivity to Danfoss design that could only come fromimmersion in the company’s design culture and their users task domains.Also, I knew that I had to avoid interaction styling by being concrete, andgenerating empathy with the users by working with information rich, complexmodels. The design strategy was therefore to explicitly take into account allfour domains in the Discourse map. Starting with concrete historic materialand stories related to it, abstracting and simplifying it and then circling innagain with increasing precision towards a final design proposal that takes intoaccount both the artifact, the intended actions with the artifact and the feelingand social significance of the interactions.I worked with nine members of the User Centered Design group. Threegroups were formed, each group included one industrial designer, and twointeraction designers with engineering or computer science backgrounds. Themajor tasks we set ourselves were to:Extrapolate current and future interaction styles from the material we hadcollected in the museum workshop. Create product concepts within theframework of the styles we defined. And finally, to attempt to communicatethe interaction styles to an audience of users and developers outside the teamand, with their help, evaluate the results.

Establishing a starting point for design with interactionstylesTo get the workshop going it was necessary to collect some backgroundinformation to set the stage and establish the knowledge base the groupswould work from. We did this by three approaches. The historic style analysis,observations of users in action, and the development of a perspective oninteraction quality for each historic style. I will describe each of these stepsbefore moving on to the actual design process.

Historic analysis of interaction styleIn the workshop we used Danfoss’ collection of 50 years of products,promotion material and anecdotal history to identify 3 interaction styles fromthe perspectives of the society, and spirit of the time that Danfoss was situatedin, the company spirit, and the technology that was available at the time. The


results were presented at a spot in the museum where the group could pointout or demonstrate properties and interface elements they used the productsthat were exhibited. They brought along brochures, and illustrated their ideason flip-over paper. The presentation was videotaped for later reference, andpictures were taken of the products that were pointed out. The material wassummarized in four posters that identified four time periods.(Details of the museum workshop were presented on page 143 above).

Figure 111: Thomas shows a brochure where the product is presented as the system and not any

actual components. Ingrid points out concrete properties of an interface

Observations and storyboardsIn preparation for the design phase of the project, visits were made to threedifferent kinds of process plant. Contextual inquiries and observations ofusers were video taped, and brought back to the group for presentation.Members of the group prepared a highlight video, and storyboards of themost relevat interaction sequences at each plant.

Figure 112: One of the storyboards made by Danfoss from video grabs of walkthroughpresentations and observations of users at work


The starting point for interaction designHow did the type of material we found at the museum, model interaction? Iwill place each type of material into the Discourse Map and describe its valueto the workshop participants.

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Picturesof use

Pictures ofcontext

Historicaldescriptions

Historicaldescriptions

Salesbrochures

Products

Highlightvideo

Observationvideo

Storyboard

Figure 113

The decontextualized, non-functioning products on display in the museumcould only represent the experience of manipulating interface componentsindividually. We got concrete information, but at a medium level of detailing,somewhere towards the limit between single interface organs and a completeproduct because it was only possible to operate the mechanical functions, andthen without real feedback from the machine system. For instance we couldnot feel temperature, read flow rates or judge the reaction of hydrauliccomponents since there were no fluids connected to the product.

Sales brochures can be both social statements and statements about theintended use of the product. The kinds of brochures we found at Danfossmust be categorized as models of intentional action, because their focus is onthe functioning of the product and on how the product is to be used, butwithout much contextual information. They were simple and abstract in theirdescriptions. At the museum we found many pictures of products in thecontext of development and fabrication, but very few in the context of use.The historical descriptions in the Intention Domain are of productionactivities, not use. This was helpful in establishing the company spirit, butdetrimental to our attempts at connecting the product to society and to theculture in their use situation. Similarly, historic descriptions in the SocialDomain are accounts of how Danfoss directors and the company as a wholereacted to social and market circumstances. Categorization is a matter of the


intention behind the making and reading of the models so I have placedhistorical descriptions in both the social and intention domains. Since we hadactual products at hand, we did not focus on the technical specifications in thesales brochures, this information would have been placed in the upper righthand corner of the interface domain, describing single abstracted propertiesthat might be experienced by the user.

Video protocols of actual work on site are quite concrete and detailed, butwhen the results are taken back on tape and reduced to a five minute highlighttape or a single page storyboard with 12 to 16 pictures, the information that ispreserved becomes both simplified and abstracted.

As may be seen from the Discourse Map, we lacked material on the feeling ofusing the products in a real context of use. There were few models in theinterface domain, and none in the interaction gestalt domain. We had actualproducts which gave a lot of concrete information, but we did not have anyfirst hand accounts of how users felt, and thought about interacting with theproducts.

Generating a team feeling for interaction styleThe first step towards designing interaction style was to extrapolate a feelingfor the interaction from our basis material. We wanted to do this in a discoursebetween all the workshop participants, and the material we had gathered, so asto assure that all the workshop participants ended up with commonlyacceptable, individual experiences

User caricatures and four perspectives on technology - developing aperspective on interaction styleUser caricatures are abstractions and simplifications of people. What makes acaricature different from a user character description is that some propertiesare exaggerated. Christina Nielsen, one of the participants in the workshop,took advantage of this effect to make a comparison between the perspectivesof computers formulated by Bødker (1991) and science fiction characters thatrepresent similar perspectives in movies and books. The idea was to create atransition from the historical style descriptions of the museum workshop, tointentions and actions that were concrete examples of the style, exemplifiedby science fiction caricatures of the time period. As models in the socialdomain these posters could be positioned on the Discourse Map assimplifications and abstractions of the movies they refer to and as concreteexamples of design perspectives.


Figure 114: The science fiction character "Spock", from Star Trek represents a systemsperspective of people and interaction

Collages - developing a current feeling for interaction styles

Figure 115: Developing a common understanding of an interaction style by discussing objectsand people that represent the style and making collages as a common reference

To make the jump from the social domain to the interaction gestalt domainwe used the historic style posters from the museum workshop, the technologyperspectives and science fiction caricatures as a reference. We then searchedfor current manifestations of the same perspectives on technology, and thesame interaction experiences. Since it is difficult to have a kinestheticdiscussion without a common experiencial reference, we used fashion trendanalysis magazines and CD-ROM's; View on Color, View on Textile and PEJ-gruppen’s fashion forecast. We were looking for objects, materials, words andpictures of people in or out of context, that represented some aspect of thestyle we wanted to describe. The search for arguments and examples to getour message across to the others forced us to make decisions about a largenumber of properties in a large number of things, thereby building acommon reference base.


Analysis with the Discourse Map

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Expressivewords

Sci-Ficharicatures

Sci-Fimovies

Interfaceperspectives

Fashionmags.

collages

Fashionmags.

Figure 116: Detailing socio-technological values from interaction perspectives

Collages and text in mood-boards use pictures and words, out of context andfunction with the product we were to design, to evoke emotions in the reader.Two of the participants with prior experience with character descriptionsobserved that mood boards and character descriptions were different. Withcharacter descriptions it was easy to stigmatize the user and his or her actions,but this was not the case with mood boards. This confirms my placing mood-boards in the interaction gestalt domain, while characters are socialdescriptions.In this case, developing a common understanding of the interactionexperience required a group effort. The group used a large number ofmodels (verbal, pictorial, physical, narrative) to develop a consensus orcommon understanding of a style. Posters containing the key elements werefabricated and used as references in later discussions to help keep thecommon focus.


Connecting interaction style to interface and activityTo start of the process of making the styles concrete, we explored thesemantic transfer technique from product semantics as described by forinstance Butter (1991). The basic idea of the technique is to abstract meaningfrom concrete products in the form of words and expressions, and thensearch for other objects that carry similar meanings. Then one applies someof the meaning carrying properties of these new objects to the problem athand and, if the choice of properties is correct, it is expected that some of themeaning will be transferred.

Semantic transfer applied to the experience of using interface organs

Figure 117: Two interface organs that support the meaning "Positive Response"

To apply the product semantics approach, we began by taking words orconcepts from the mood-boards, and searching for interface organs thatsupported the meaning. This approach did not lead to satisfactory results dueto insufficient explanation of the process by me, and lack of experience inusing the technique by the other participants. However, a few good examplesindicated that this might be a worthwhile technique to try again later.


Semantic Transfer applied to interaction in storyboards

Figure 118: A frame from a storyboard, with comments modifying the activity to fit a newinteraction style

The problems we had with applying semantic transfer to the transition frominteraction experience to interface components, were not present when weused the same technique for modifying storyboards. The discursiverelationships between models may explain this (Figure 119): Storyboardsfocus better on actions than interface components do. It could be because theassociative leap was smaller when going from interaction gestalt to interactionthan from interaction gestalt to interface, or it could be that the participants inthe workshop were better trained for sensitivity to the discursive relationshipbetween interaction and experience than to the relationship betweenexperience and the visual representation of interaction potential in things. Thelast assumption is supported by the fact that most had interaction designexperience , not industrial design experience. What ever the reason, we foundthat reviewing the story boards frame by frame, and evaluating the actions fortheir ability to support the experiences we wanted in an interaction style, wasan effective way of analyzing and creating new ideas for activities, functionsand products.



Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Expressivewords

Interfacesketches

Storyboards

Figure 119

Redefining the intentional actions modeled in the storyboards, and then usingthem as a basis for suggesting new interfaces seemed to work best. Theintuitive leaps between expressive words, storyboards and interface sketcheswere all internal to each designer. In the discourse they were argued byexemplification with analogies to similar relationships. It is difficult to sayhow much the collages influenced generation of ideas for interfaces and themodified storyboards, because there were few direct transfers of propertiesbetween them. The expressive qualities of the styles were referred to withwords, as we worked. This is supported by comments from the participants,that the names for the styles might be to internal to the design teams, and thatwe needed good names to convey the essence of the style to others.


Creating potential interaction experiences as productsTo bring the interface ideas, modified actions and interaction experiencestogether in three complete design proposals, we employed industrial designprocedures with the addition of GUI design activities. Total form andcomponent form, technical considerations and interface and ergonomicconsiderations were developed concurrently. They were brought together indesign sketches, paper prototypes and foam models.

Developing interaction through interface components and screens

Figure 120: Total form, component construction and function are illustrated in designsketches, while screens are drawn on the computer to assure readability on a limited resolution

B/W LCD display.

At the start of the project we constrained our selves to developing a productbased on the Apple Newton hardware, excluding the casing, and allowing foradditions such as buttons and radios. GUI's and SUI's were developed inparallel by sketching. E.g., we made hardware solutions to support physicalactivities such as talking in a microphone with both hands free, or taking thePDA from a holster in a quick fluid motion. Screens were developed tosupport the kinds of activities each storyboard indicated. E.g. working onmultiple tasks might be supported by an interface that had index cards thatthe user configured by assigning a different view of the data to each card.When the time came to create a totality we switched to drawing screens inAdobe Illustrator while the hardware was still on paper. Then the two werebrought together by scanning the drawings, coloring them and pasting in asample screen in Adobe Photoshop. To document the interactivity, a frontview of the hardware and all the screens were printed out as a paper prototype.


Figure 121: Troels and Christina build models in foam, plastic and paper, while Nina makesscreens in the background

Engaging users in the discourseTo document and present the hardware design proposals, we made full sizefoam models. An evaluation session was arranged, with local users, servicepersonnel and product developers. Inspired by the cat-walk format of fashionpresentations, and previous experiences with performance presentations, suchas those described by Hede Markussen (1995), we prepared a presentation inwhich we showed video clips from the observations with a projector in thebackground. A narrator introduced the scenario, before the presentation wasturned over to a "fashion model" who made the presentation. The "fashionmodel" was dressed up in working clothes; hard hat, tool case and overall andpartly played, partly explained the design model as it was used in the scenario.To complement the explanation, a video camera and monitor was used topresent the paper prototypes, live, as they were run in parallel with the"fashion model's" presentation of the design proposal.

For an evaluation, we placed posters, models and paper prototypes on a table,one for each of the three proposals. After an informal discussion, theaudience was asked to write positive and negative critique on green and redpost-its, and place them next to the appropriate model. These comments weremainly concerned with technical qualities, usability issues and the visualdesign of the proposals.To see if we had managed to convey the interaction styles, I devised anevaluation loosely inspired by a semantic differential test. I wrote the originalwords or phrases from the mood boards on post-it notes. They were all placedin random order on a flipover sheet, and the audience was asked to place themone by one on the proposal they thought it belonged to. If there was anydisagreement, they could make duplicates and place them on two alternativeproposals. Since only about half the phrases were spread out by the audience,we decided to make a biding round with the remaining phrases. One by onethey were read out and a discussion followed to decide if they fit insomewhere. Another third of the phrases were distributed in this way. Onsumming up the results, it was unnecessary with statistics to see that there was


no significant correlation between the evaluation and the set of phrases westarted with. The experiment was a failure because there were to manyuncontrolled variables that may have influenced the results:First of all, from the discussions it was clear that there was large variability inthe interpretations the phases were given by members of the audience.Forcing an interpretation in the biding round, and not documenting any ofthe discussions or interpretations made the results difficult to interpret. Basedon the nature of the discussions during the evaluation session, one could alsoargue that much of the evaluators interpretation of our mood board phraseswas functionally inspired, while we interpreted the answers as semanticdifferentials, and that this contributed to the divergent and unusable results.Secondly, we had rotated the styles between the three groups in the designprocess, while the groups were responsible for the same storyboard, orscenario, the whole time. It was found that it would probably have been easierto understand new scenarios than new styles. A style was dependent on a largenumber of exemplars and discussions to create a common understanding inthe design group. When we left the style to the next group to develop further,most of the information was lost, and the new group reinterpreted the style sothat most of the intentions with the design were lost, or changed to a degreethat the resulting products became unclear.


Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Functionalcritique

Stylephrases

Paperprototype

Fashionmodelpresent.

Foammodel

Figure 122: The heavy arrow indicates the discursive relationship we established in the SmartWindow presentation. . The thin arrows indicate the two discussions of the evaluation session.

The models used for presenting the interaction proposals, were a foam model,a paper prototype and a fashion presentation. The first explained the 3D,visual and haptic properties of the interface. The second explained thebehavior and the visual appearance of the screen interface. Due to limited


space in the Discourse Map they are side by side, but in practice theyrepresent approximately the same degrees of detailing and abstraction fromactual interaction. The third model, the performance, explained the interactionproposal in relation to a context of use.

The evaluations were conducted independently of one another in time. Bothevaluation sessions referred back to the presentation by way of the physicalmodels and posters.The evaluation was mainly focused on describing functional properties of theproposals; therefor these written and oral descriptions are placed in theabstract and simplified corner of the intention domain. The results of thesemantic evaluation using our initial style phrases constitutes simplified andabstracted models of the interaction experience we had tried to communicate.

Results from the Danfoss Smart Window workshopAttempting to complete the circle of all four domains during the designprocess provided a number of insights about the design material before usand about alternative design procedures:

To establish a starting point for design with interaction styles, we did a historicanalysis of interaction style. Then we made field observations with users andgenerated storyboards of representative current scenarios. The historicmaterial only provided information about the life-world at the time, that is, italmost only modeled interaction in the upper half of the Discourse Map.From sales and technical documents we could read what was perceived asnecessary knowledge about the products but only implicitly, about intendeduse. From historic descriptions of the company’s activities we could read whatwas perceived as important norms and social reality in company culture. Wediscovered that the museum lacked information about interaction experiencesand descriptions of the users intentions and activities with the products afterthey left the factory.The observation material and current use scenarios was not interpreted forinteraction style at this time.

As the first step, we needed to generate a team feeling for interaction style.This meant that each team member had to relate his or her individualinteraction experiences to the historic interaction style categories. At the sametime we had to bring the interaction styles up to date in order to use them asthe basis for design. We approached this task from a different direction thanusual in empathic design. Usually one would use ethnographically inspiredobservation techniques, and then generate user character descriptions andscenarios. This procedure makes sure that there is a close coupling betweenreality and the designers feeling. In stead, we made more abstract caricaturesbased on science fiction characters and abstract descriptions of technologyperspectives to decontextualize our historic information from the feeling itgenerated. This procedure was a success. It made it easier to make theassociative leap into the near future of the fashion trend material.We then used the fashion trend material to create collages and lists ofexpressive words to simplify and abstract the new, up to date, feeling we hadacquired. With this step we jumped from a past social domain of knowledge toa near future interaction gestalt domain. The jump was internal to eachdesigner in the team. Afterwards, negotiations to achieve the team feeling usedarguments in the interface and intention domains to validate the jump. In thisway all four domains were used actively. We discovered that this procedure


avoided the stigmatization that is a problem with the user characterizationtechnique.

We began the idea generation process by transferring the feeling we hadacquired for the interaction styles from abstract words and simplified collagesto concrete interface components and intentions. Two different techniqueswere used, inspired by the semantic transfer technique used in productsemantics design. First, going directly from interaction gestalts to interfacecomponents, second going from interaction gestalts to intentions. The secondtechnique proved easier to use, possibly because there was a greater associativeand interpretive leap from feeling to thing, than from feeling to action. Thedesign process then continued by connecting interface ideas with actions,discussing social implications for the work place and the feelings thisconnection was expected to invoke in the user, as we worked towards acomplete interface specification. During this process we rotated the stylesbetween the teams, while each team was responsible for one scenario. Only inthe final stages of the workshop did we attend to the exterior form of theproduct. The results of this work were not given the same emphasis as theinteraction design process, and the results showed little consistency betweenthe visual product and the interactive product.

To evaluate the results of the workshop we invited selected users anddevelopers to participate in a performance presentation. This presentation wasa concrete description of the new interactions between people and products.By introducing as many details as possible we hoped to involve the other threedomains as well. All three scenarios were presented as performances using thenew product models and paper prototypes, the working environment wasprojected on a background screen, dialogs with co workers and correctclothing completed the presentation. In an evaluation session afterwards theinvited users focused on functional problems, and my semantic evaluation wasnot well enough prepared to provide reliable results.

In conclusion, it can be noted that while we started with social and interfaceanalysis, developed the interaction style in a discourse between social,intention and interaction gestalt domains, the results were mainly discussed onthe diagonal axis between intentions and interfaces. We did not succeed inverifying whether the interaction styles had been retained and communicatedto the users in the final presentation. Those stages in the workshop were wemanaged to discuss our design material using models in multiple domains andspend the time to explicate complex relationships between many modelsproved most fruitful. But we were not conscious of having to protect andnurture this investment. In hindsight it proved a mistake to circulate the threeinteraction styles between the design teams, instead of the scenarios. Retainingthe feeling for an interaction style through the design process, and realizing itthrough a multitude of concrete design decisions requires a continuosdiscourse within the group. Communicating the feeling to another grouprequired a lot more time for discourse than we had available in this workshop.


6.3 The Intervett Time Capture project – linear designThe starting point for this project was that I wanted to reiterate and focus theempathic design process from the Danfoss workshop. In the Danfossworkshop I had found that empathic design needed time and continuation todevelop a feeling and support the initial interaction style through the designprocess. Communication within the design team was an obstacle to realizingthe interaction style in the product proposals. How would a similar designstrategy work with only one designer?

The basis for this project was a modularized, intranet based projectmanagement system produced by Intervett a.s., a Norwegian web and intranetsoftware development company. One of the modules was a time reporting,and time management tool. A project manager would use it to collect andanalyze the hours spent by project workers. Reporting hours spent in theconventional manner by taking personal notes or trusting memory, and thenreconstructing a report at the end of the task, day or week results in each teammember interpreting and editing reality before writing the final report. Thismeans that the project manager does not see what is actually going on, and isunable to organize work better.The concept of time capturing was defined by Intervett as a possible solutionto the problem. By gathering as much information as possible about how timeis being allocated and used by project workers a more realistic picture wouldemerge. The result would not necessarily be more billable hours, but moreexplicit experience about doing the work. This experience would be an assetto both the company and to the individual worker.

Figure 123: The difference between time capturing and billable hours. Knowing what you aredoing and what part of it is billable

But how does one make project workers report their time? An empathicinteraction design approach might provide new ideas by comparing theinteraction styles of workers with how they feel about tracking their use oftime.

I was the masters degree tutor for Lars Hurlen, a machine engineeringstudent, who had complemented his education with a year of ergonomics andproduct design studies at the Technical University in Delft. Hurlen hadworked with conventional user centered design methods on a mechatronicinterface in the previous term, and wanted to focus on practical empathicdesign methods for his degree work. He needed activities that were within thecapacity of one person over three months, in stead of nine people in ten days.The design process would necessarily be more linear and iterative rather thanconcurrent, as in the Danfoss case, which fit my interests well.

As preliminary guidelines it was agreed that Hurlen would work within acurrent interface vocabulary inspired by WIMP style computer interfaces andweb style interaction. We reduced the importance of the visual image as muchas possible to focus almost entirely on designing the interface to supportinteraction. By avoiding visual design I also hoped to avoid the problem of


interference between interaction style and visual style that plagued theevaluation session in the Danfoss workshop.

Hurlen worked in our department’s man machine interaction lab most of thetime so we had informal discussions almost on a daily basis, as well as formaltutoring sessions approximately once a fortnight. In addition to tutoring Iparticipated in the workshops and final evaluation.

Preparations – learning about products and users

Learning about productsHurlen did preliminary research of products on the markets of personaldiaries, and time management systems, both paper and software based. Hevisited stores, phoned companies, and did a web search of paper based, PDAbased and desktop computer based products. He explored down-loadeddemos and a few actual computer systems and web based systems that weresupplied by Intervett and the Product Design department.We did not do any mapping or trend analysis of the products, because wewanted to base our approach entirely on the needs and opportunities thatpresented themselves in user interviews and observations. The materialconstituted a collection of exemplars of current interface design andfunctionality that Hurlen learned by doing the collection work.

Observations in three different types of companiesIntervett specified the target group as: “larger companies doing projectoriented work and billing on an hourly basis”To understand the context in which time capturing was needed, we isolatedthree types of project based work: Multiple, parallel, short deadline projects.Large, long term projects involving many different consultants and projectmembers, and finally manual outdoor work, involving traveling to customersites and communicating with a dispatch office. Hurlen found representativecompanies in the Trondheim area and visited one of each category:ScanPartner Profil - an advertising agency, SINTEF Material Technology - asection of a large research and development institution, and TEV -Trondheim’s electricity company, a section working on power networkservice and installation. He prepared a presentation of each company, itsorganization, working environment and products in the form of A3 postersthat summarized the general contextual information he had collected.


Figure 124: A poster summarizing the working conditions and context of use at SINTEF

Figure 125: A poster summarizing an interview with a respondent at TEV contains pictures ofrespondent, his working environment and equipment. Direct citations in the text highlight his

meanings and personality.

Three people were chosen in each company. One on the receiving side oftime reports; an accountant and two project managers, and two on the side thatproduced the time reports; an art director and an illustrator, a CAD operatorand structural analyst, a mechanical engineer, and two electrical engineers.


The observations were done in the form of interviews and walkthroughslasting approximately 1 hour each. The whole session was video taped forlater analysis. An A3 poster was made as a summary of the observations andtalks with each person and contained video grabs of contextual information.

Design opportunities - analysis of users and jobsHurlen analyzed each company and each respondent individually, bydescribing how they manage their time and project information, and how theirpersonalities and their individual work situations reflect on time managementand reporting. After each analysis he concluded by describing designopportunities: A need could be fulfilled by introducing a new function or itcould indicate that a redesign was necessary. There could be existing systemsthat were not used due to some combination of personal preference andpractice, or there could be work situations that were not catered for by anysystem. For instance, in the advertising agency, Hurlen found thatcommunication took place either by e-mail or by direct meetings in the halls.People were moving quickly between different tasks in different projects andoften switched topic because they met someone they needed to talk to.Therefore, they had trouble taking definitive notes and making final decisionsabout their use of time as they worked. This was done at quiet momentsduring the day or before going home. At SINTEF, the opposite was the case.An engineer working on some small part of the project could be totallyisolated from knowing the big picture. Because of the size of the projects, thelines of communication were need-to-know relationships. He would have alimited set of tasks and could work on them for days or weeks. It was easy tokeep track of time, but there was potential for creating more team spirit byseeing what others were doing.

Design directions – indicating the feeling and functionsFinally in a general analysis, Hurlen identified the common characteristics ofthe respondents’ relationships to time management and reporting. Thequalities of interaction they had commented on, or that were apparent in theobservations were formulated as “Design directions”. For instance: Makesure to have interface redundancy because users have different ways ofworking, or: Companies with mobile employees could use a PDA based timelogging system - make a system that works on small screens.

Analysis with the Discourse MapTwo types of information were collected when searching for products;information about the products interfaces, and information about the intendeduse of the product. Information might come from advertisements, brochuresand product specification sheets. This was partially about how the interfacewas configured, which is information in the interface domain, and partiallyabout the way the product was intended to work, which is information in theintentional domain.Product demos and actual products allow the designers and user a feeling ofthe interactions and an exploration of the potential for action, but as long asthe user is not actually using the product it is still only a model, orrepresentation of the possibilities for interaction.


Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Products

Productdemos

Sales materialProduct spec.

Salesmaterial onfunctions

Userinterview

Videoobservation

Company &Userposters

Figure 126: A Discourse Map of Hurlen’s preparations

The video observations of respondents using time management systems wereprimarily documents of users intentional actions with existing productsbecause the users were consciously showing their work, not doing it. Theinformal interviews that were recorded at the same time were descriptions ofthe individual users conception of the relationship between their tasks andtheir social context.When creating the posters Hurlen inevitably synthesized and interpretedcontext and action, even if the goal was to reflect reality. Because of the needfor brevity, material relevant to his design problem had to be given priority.This Discursive process brought his material from the video tapes over to theposters, and at the same time, from the intention domain to the domain ofsocial conventions and norms because of the comparison and interpretationhe did. The degree to which Hurlen’s discourse with his design materialsucceeded depends on how the posters present the social values and norms ofeach company in the video tapes, and not his own interpretations.

On presenting his findings to Intervett’s management Hurlen found thatpictures and highlighted user comments were effective ways ofcommunicating the essence of his observations to people who did not have thetime to review hours of tape or to read many pages of summaries. He alsosuggested that using the video and interactive capabilities of internet might bean alternative form of reporting that would suit management in a companybuilt and based on computer network technology.


Empathic design starting from three interactionperspectivesAs a summary of interaction styles, and a starting point for design Hurlenformulated three interaction perspectives inspired by Bødker (1991) and theDanfoss Smart Window workshop.

Table 14

T o o l s D i a l o g S y s t e m• Direct• Control• Goal Oriented• Physical• Robust• Conservative• Predictable

• Personal• Dialog• Cooperation• Responsive/ give feedback• Influence-able• Companionable• Guide• Language• Assist• Partner• Support

• Technological• Working close to

potential• Modern• High-tech• The net is a world• Impatient• Relaxing on line• Totality

D e s i g n• Conservative look• Wants to do things and

see immediate results• The application can be

fragmented because it isperceived as separatetools any way.

• The system is only ameans to a goal not thegoal itself

• not concerned withpotential andpossibilities but withresults

• Will quickly lose interestif he doesn’t get results

• WYSIWYG• Direct manipulation (drag

and drop)

D e s i g n• Meaningful dialog• Machine suggests

procedure• Personal help function• Feedback - assurance that

all is well• The application should

connect him closer tocolleagues

• Exemplars• Phrases

D e s i g n• Modern, high tech looks

and behavior• Use the possibilities• No old fashioned

solutions• Familiarity with current

web design• Fast

User charactersTo develop these three perspectives into real people and establish an empathicrelationship to them Hurlen described three user characters called Olav,Kristen and Kai. He presented them all on one A3 page with pictures, a shortlist of personal data and a description of their personality in the form of ashort life history, their job situation, and private and professionalrelationships.


Table 15: Three user characters


CollagesTo support the character descriptions three collages were developed. From theDanfoss workshop we found that character descriptions have the weakness ofeasily stigmatizing the user. Also they focus attention on the characterspotential for action. A collage on the other hand conveys a feeling instead,thereby increasing the distance to actual people and actions while retaining aphysical representation and experience of an interaction style. We wanted totry out both media as the basis for idea generation in brainstorming sessions.

Figure 127: A collage of the fashionably modern system perspective

Scenarios as a synthesis of interaction stylesFinally, to complement the character descriptions, and create a synthesis of theobserved activities, three stories, or written scenarios describing the currentsituation were developed, one for each character. They presented typicalactivities leading to the most important problems found in the analysis. As anexample I will translate a section from Kai’s day:“Kai never comes to work before 9 AM. Its Monday, “At it again....” Kaimumbles as he turns on his machine: 6 new mails; four from friends, one fromthe IDEAS user group and one from Irene, his spouse asking if he has takenthe newspaper to work because she can’t find it. He replies that she shouldtake a look by the TV...The mail from the IDEAS news group, he deletes unread after seeing thesubject field. He gets a lot of these mails, sometimes there is somethinginteresting there. Besides its good to know that if he is stuck he can always gethelp, there is always someone who can answer.He starts IDEAS and opens the mesh he had been working on yesterday. Thisis a project that is a bit transverse to the SINTEF organization. Kværner hashuge craft that search for oil in the North Sea, they function like mobileoilrigs, and when they anchor they have long cables down to the bottom. It’sthese cables Kai is simulating a part of now. SINTEF Marintech, SINTEFChemistry and SINTEF Petroleum are also involved in the project, they havehad few meetings until now, but they have mailed a bit and Kai’s simulationshave traveled back and forth. After an hour he completes the setup for thesimulations and sets another machine to do the calculations. He expects it totake about a half-hour. He wonders what he should do in the mean time.

He decides to take a look at the paper he is preparing for a conference duenext month. He opens Word, but wants to get a cup of coffee first. He isn’t


dependent on a coffee every morning, but now it will be good. By the coffeemachine he meets Trond who has just sat down with a journal. Trond hasbeen working on an old boat, and they talk about it until the mesh is finished.Trond comes along to see it and they stand there a while and discuss it.Kai still has the paper in his head and decides to continue with it untillunch....” (Hurlen 1998)

Analysis in relation to the theory of discursive interaction design

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Scenarios

Interactionperspectives

Characterdescription

Collage

Figure 128: Map of models used to create an empathic understanding of interaction style

The models used to describe interaction do not address actual interfaces at all.In the previous step Hurlen started by abstracting from observations in theintentional domain via user descriptions all the way up to Interactionperspectives. The synthesis process starts here, and with these models he hasmoved down again in the same direction with character descriptions andscenarios. The character descriptions and scenarios are based on the preparedbackground material. Only the collages are new and concrete. They constitutethe first major subjective interpretation but they do not directly associate toany specific interface, thereby leaving the matter of defining the productopen.


Brainstorming with subjective and social rationalitiesTo further develop the understanding of interaction style that had beenestablished, Hurlen proceeded with three activities to realize the interactionstyles in interfaces:• Two successive brainstorming sessions with representatives from Intervett• Idea generation on paper• Idea synthesis and development in Macromedia Director

Two brainstorming sessions with different maneuversThe first Brainstorming session included four people from Intervett: Theproject manager, two computer application developers and a controller plusHurlen and myself. The project manager briefed the group on the projectgoals. The user characters were presented by Hurlen, and then eachparticipant was supplied with a set of the scenarios that they read individually.Their first task was to identify and argue for what they perceived as the mostimportant problems, the ones that we should design for in the coming twohours. There was room beside each scenario for drawing and taking notes.Our goal with this task was to involve all the participants in trying tounderstand the scenarios.After a presentation around the table, the design task was agreed upon. Wethen introduced the way we would work: We would discuss and suggest ideasfreely in a brainstorming format. Each person noted his or her ideas on paperbeside the section of the scenario that it concerned or used one of the othersideas, and developed their own version on paper. We wanted the participantsto focus on the actions, not solely on the product functionality.However, discussions had difficulty leaving the problem-defining phase, andwere centered on how to get users motivated for reporting their time and whatto do about privacy if all actual time was to be reported.

Figure 129: The first brainstorming session: Each participant had “his own” scenarios as abase for discussing alternative user activities, product properties and motivating factors or

"carrots"


Figure 130: The second brainstorming session was focused on realizing the experience of aninteraction style in concrete interface and behavior ideas. Everyone used the same paper and

referred to the same collages on the whiteboard.

In the second session, we decided to force the participants directly into aconcrete and individual mode of thinking even though they had littleknowledge about the product. We did not give the participants any personaltasks or material. Flip-over sheets were placed in the center of the table alongwith markers, crayons and pencils. We initiated the paper by scribbling someof the earliest ideas on it. Participants this time were three Intervett employees,two programmers and one designer.

The participants were presented with one theme at a time. One collage wasshown, and only a few selected segments of one scenario was read aloud, thisresulted in a categorizing discussion that was a humorous and creative werethe participants created caricatures of activities and people, and used this as away of developing a common understanding of the information at hand.Although we made the collages and the short presentations to avoid buildingclear pictures of the users in the participants’ head, we found that theydiscussed the information by exploring its concrete meaning giving abilitywith a social rationality.


Analysis in relation to the theory of discursive interaction design

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract

DetailedIntentional

Domain

Concrete Concrete

InteractionGestaltDomain

SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Scenarios

Characterdescription

Productideas

Metaphor

Principles

Interfaceideas

Bra ins torm

1

Brains torm

2

Moodboard

Figure 131: Map of the brainstorming activities in sessions 1 and 2

In the first brainstorming session discussions focused on motivating the userwith a “carrot”. The discussion jumped back and forth in the trianglebetween principles that might be acceptable, and the products or properties ofthe interface that might provide the user with the appropriate inspiration to actin the desired way. The character descriptions had a supporting role, beingused to gain an impression of the kind of people our social norms were toapply to. Both Hurlen and I had the impression afterwards that nobodywanted to commit themselves to developing ideas before they were sure of thepremises or philosophy they were building on. It was a discussion to establishconsensus about social norms rather than a concrete idea generation session.

In the second brainstorming session the collage was used to search forbehaviors and interfaces that afforded a certain feeling. The feeling wasdescribed in terms of metaphorical understandings the user might develop,For instance, on the question of the users and her data’s presence on the net.What is moving? The user or the data?Many possibilities were explored for their expressive potential. (see Figure132 and Figure 133). This session was therefore focused on a subjectiverationality.Of course, an important uncontrolled variable in these sessions was thecomposition of the groups’ personalities. The fact that we managed tobecome concrete could be, simply, a matter of personal chemistry and thebrainstorming abilities of the participants. Also I observed that the firstmeeting was dominated by analytically inclined members while the secondwas dominated by creative members.


Figure 132: A page from brainstorming session 2: Developing the feeling of sketching ortaking informal notes by using handwriting recognition, drafting information from multiple

sources and assigning the information importance, a receiver etc. from a toolbar

Figure 133: Three metaphorical understandings of user presence and movement on the net.From brainstorming session two: Does the system come to me, do I go to the system or am I in

the system and expand something that is in front of me?


Engaging users in the discourse

Director simulationsFrom this point Hurlen started work on developing concrete solutions. Themain directions of Hurlen’s idea development were to:• develop many alternative ways of using the time management functions,

catering to different kinds of activity and ways of using the system.• create a clear distinction between a private, a public, and an official domain

in the system, so that users would feel secure about making personal notes,and discussing them with trusted colleagues.

• create a system that was simple and compact enough for using on PDA´sor in situations where willingness to focus attention on time managementwas minimal.

Figure 134: Presentation sketch of buttons and fields in the Navigation and Notes windows


Hurlen worked on a navigation window and personal notes function, a diaryand calendar, he developed two variants of time reports, and finally, anautomatic time logging function in which the user simply needed to press abutton to note the time, and then could go back to the notes later, somewhat inanalogy to a stopwatch.The navigation between these windows, was the other major issue. By creatingdifferent transitions and behaviors for transferring information, and bypresenting different aspects of the same information in the different windows,various interaction qualities could be achieved.To avoid leading the viewers to believe the simulations were at an advancedstate of refinement. Hurlen drew the screens by hand as he sketched ideas, andscanned them in black and white. Also the simulations were presented on ablank white background, not on a normal desktop background, to make themappear less finished. It proved a more time consuming approach then drawingideas directly on the screen because elements could not be copied, modifiedand reused to the extent that a clean, computer drawn graphic can. We knewthat the quality of sketches and drawings strongly influence the viewersperception of the quality of the idea, and its state of refinement. It isextremely easy, in many cases even a necessity, to make computer drawingsprecise and visually refined. For instance, both CAD models and low-resolution, or small, pixel based graphics need a high degree of precision tobe understandable. But this results in viewers evaluating details in stead ofprinciples and concepts. Alternatively, timid users will accept solutions thatlook advanced and refined because they feel incompetent to criticize them.

Figure 135: A screen dump of a Director simulation. Two windows afford a limited degree ofinteractivity such as navigating and inputting information. Alternative solutions are

accessible through the buttons at the bottom of the screen.


Engaging users in an exploratory usability testFour users from one of the companies that took part in the observation wereinvited to participate in an exploratory group usability test of the interfaceideas. There was one project accountant/secretary, one project manager, andtwo consultants, plus Hurlen and myself. One of the users was responsible forpressing the mouse, and naturally became dominant in the test.Hurlen had prepared a scenario that would confront the group with the mostcritical questions about his ideas. If the group’s natural exploration anddiscussion of the simulations did not cover the issues he had planned, heprompted a discussion with a question or a suggestion about doingsomething. The session was video taped, and a subsequent analysis resulted inone more iteration and synthesis of the interface ideas on paper

Figure 136: Interface simulations were shown on an LCD projector for a group of five people

Analysis in relation to the theory of discursive interaction designBecause the test was in an exploratory form and the group situation inspireddiscussion, the usability test resulted in information in all four domains.Meanings differed about the value of the solutions, because the users haddifferent time keeping routines that they compared the simulation to.The visual appearance got a few reactions in the beginning, but was quicklyaccepted, and probably contributed to the users ability to compare with theirown system, since this was clearly not an alternative but a principle solution.

The experience of the interface’s behavior was commented, especially therollover graphics on the buttons. The users understanding of actions, were themajor topics of discussion, partly because of misinterpretations of graphicsand system reactions, and partly because of personal variations in routines.This last point also resulted in some discussions about the social acceptabilityand value of the product proposal, in a social, working context.


Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract


Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Test report

Usability testvideo

Metaphor and“feel”statements

Simulation

Suitabilitystatements

Sketches

Figure 137: An exploratory usability test of an interface simulation gives a wealth ofinformation in all four domains

The findings of the test resulted in a new sketch with the same degree ofdetailing as the last iteration, It integrated suggestions for modifications to thebehavior of the interface, resulting in better feel and improving the readabilityand activities supported by the interface in relationship to findings in theintentional domain. Hurlen concluded that his results only were the start of aconcept development process that needed much more work before a completesolution could be found. The basis on which he had built his ideas was tounreliable due to a small number of respondents and shallow research of theiractivities. But he felt the basic approach was sound and could be used more.Continuing to explore users, their activities and contexts, by observations andby confronting them with different solutions is probably what is needed to putthe social value discussions to rest, if it is at all possible to find a solution tothe touchy theme of reporting what one does with one’s time.

Results – comparison of design techniquesThe starting point for this project was that I wanted to reiterate and focus theempathic design process from the Danfoss workshop. In the Danfossworkshop I found that empathic design needed time and continuation todevelop a feeling and support the initial interaction style through the designprocess. Communication within the design team was an obstacle to realizingthe interaction style in the product proposals. How would a similar designstrategy work with only one designer?

While the Danfoss case developed interaction styles from a study of corporatehistory and used it to modify current storyboards and create future scenarios,the Intervett project developed interaction style descriptions from user


observations and interviews and used them directly in idea generation for newinterface ideas. The associative leap into the present was thereforeunnecessary.

Two idea generation techniques were tried out: The first based on characterdescriptions and current scenarios lead to a brainstorming session that hadtrouble avoiding value judgements and critique, the second, based on collagesand snippets of the current scenarios proved far more successful. It producedmore ideas and ideas grounded in empathy and interaction gestalt thinking.Although the participants in the groups were different and will haveinfluenced the results, it is also interesting to note that the first session wasbased on models in the social domain, while the second was based on modelsin the interaction gestalt and intention domains. The first therefore set of a farmore judgmental discourse than the second did.The second brainstorm took most of its queues from the collages and createdideas formulated directly as interface components. The same procedure wastried in a more formal and structured way in the Danfoss case as the semantictransfer session, but did not succeed. In the analysis of the Danfoss case Ispeculated that the cause was lack of experience with the technique by theparticipants. Comparing the two instances a possible explanation could be thatthe semantic transfer requires the ability to understand how abstract semanticconcepts relate to experiences and how experience can be used to makemental connections to things, something an industrial designer is trained for.The brainstorming session on the other hand does not describe what is goingto happen, you are simply thrown into an association process based on thetask and material before you and have to rely on an empathic approach,which is something anybody can do, because we all have vast amounts ofexperience with artifacts.

As in the Danfoss case, the Intervett project lost sight of the interaction stylewhen the ideas were developed into concrete solutions. In the Danfoss casethis was due to rotating the styles amongst the teams, producingcommunication problems and loosing the feel for the style, in the Intervettcase it was due to the working capacity of one person, combined with ourambition to sharpen the focus by creating Macromedia Director™ simulationsin stead of paper prototypes. In effect we were only able to develop one lineof ideas, with a few variations, in two iterations. As the users were unable toevaluate the interaction experience, it became clear that an evaluation sessionmust be based on comparison in order to achieve reliable results with suchsubjective, and qualitative material as interaction styles.

In conclusion both cases managed to introduce the concept of interactionstyle and develop a concrete feel for interaction style as far as the ideageneration phase. Unfortunately, due to practical problems none of the casescarried the styles through to a point were a study of the consequences for afinished product was possible.


6.4 Design strategies – comparison of the two casesTo compare the two cases at a general level, I compared each set of modelsthat were used in a discourse, and evaluated them for their relative importance.In Figure 138, I have summarized the focus areas of the two cases. My mainimpression was that the Danfoss case covered the field of interactiondescriptions more broadly than the Intervett case. This is apparent in Figure138 where the Danfoss case uses more varied models than the Intervett case,and covers broader areas of the map. The Intervett case seemed more focusedand linear in progression when I participated in it, which was also intendedwhen we planned it. This is apparent by its models being more tightlyclustered.The Danfoss case relied on more concrete and detailed models in the socialdomain (outlined oval) while the Intervett case relied on abstractions andsimplifications (gray oval).In the Interface domain the Danfoss case was more spread out. The Intervettcase used more detailed simulations while the Danfoss case used historicproducts, foam models and paper prototypes(gray oval).Both cases relied heavily on the discourse between intention models and socialmodels , although the Intervett case was, again, slightly more concrete andfocused.Notably, there were few models of interaction gestalts. I had to apply designprocedures from fashion and product semantics design in order to explicatethe discourse in this domain at all. Both cases therefore ended up using thesame models in this domain. I interpret this as a characteristic of the currentstyle of thinking in interaction design.


Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract

DetailedIntentional

Domain

Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

Danfoss workshop

Intervett project

Figure 138: An overview of the models used in the two reported cases.

The analysis of the Discourse Maps provided a new insight into the designstrategies of the fields from which I had gathered inspiration and borroweddesign procedures.In order to achieve a balanced development of design between all fourdomains I combined characteristic design maneuvers from four differentfields of design. This lead me to observe that the fields had different styles ofthinking about product and interaction design.

Industrial design has traditionally been interested in intentions in the form offunctions. A direct coupling similar to that of engineering design has beenused, while social and expressive implications of design proposals have beenthe tacit knowledge of the individual designer. In the eighties, productsemantics was introduced in order to systematically address the discoursebetween norms for visual expression (interface domain) and intended actions.This trend continues today with discussions about experience and valueperceptions which are closely linked with a beginning interest for sociologicaland cultural discussions, generating models in the social domain.One of the driving forces introducing the social domain into the productdesign discussion is probably HCI design, which from similar roots in theinterface/intention axis of computer science adopted ethnographic andsociological methods with the participatory design movement of the eighties.


Fashion design is an outsider in this group, which has developed its own wayof working in the conceptual stages of design. The functional premises andprinciple structure of clothing is so well ordered that all innovation andjousting for position has moved to the opposite diagonal, between the socialand interaction gestalt/personal experience domains.

Simple

Abstract Abstract

Simple

Simple

Abstract

DetailedSimple

Abstract

DetailedIntentional

Domain

Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

EngineeringDesign

FashionDesign

IndustrialDesign

InteractionDesign

Figure 139: Explicit discourses in the four fields of engineering, interface, fashion andindustrial design

6.5 Conclusion

Challenges of using the Discourse MapIn the analysis of the cases presented here, I found it a continuous challengeto isolate and avoid the objective rationality to which I have been trained as aproduct designer. Particularly the concept of function proved difficult. I havebeen taught that a function is part of a causal chain with the effects necessaryfor realizing some goal. E.g. making two holes in a paper is the function of ahole punch, and this process is a part of the larger function of storing papersin ring binders. But from the perspective of interaction, no artifact has afunction. In stead an artifact is a symbol and a facilitator of an action, andmay be read as a sign or affordance. The user may understand the codes andsee the designers intent when making the product, but the user is still free touse the product in any way, and exploit any of its properties, whether they areintentional or unwanted byproducts.Another major challenge has been deciding what domain a model belongs to.As I have mentioned earlier it is the designer’s intentions with the model that


must be decisive. The same problem is apparent in the complex and detailedend of the domain theory of technical systems, from which the Discourse Mapis inspired. A prototype will de detailed enough to model almost any propertyin any domain, and should therefore be in all of them if it were not for theconvention of using it to study production, material and component details.The same is the case with descriptions of actions and interfaces in the theoryof discursive interaction design. Depending on the designer’s intentions adetailed model of interaction will provide information about social values,activities, the feelings afforded and the interface objects with which theactivities are performed. It is this process of having to decide what phenomenaare important in a model and how the designer is using it as a discursive aidthat makes the theory of discursive interaction design result in a more explicitunderstanding of the designers work.It is up to the field of interaction design as a whole to develop conventionsabout the use of models. One of the strengths of the field is that it focuses onusing complex concrete models that capture many aspects of interaction andforce the designer to take holistic, views of interaction from the user'sperspective. The same strength is a weakness when it comes to categorizationand systematization of knowledge. But as I hope to have shown it is possibleto break down an interaction design process into very fine steps. The theoryof discursive interaction design should therefore facilitate a discussion at anylevel from debating the value of single techniques to general discussionsabout the trends and directions of the complete design process

The value of using the Discourse MapIn what way did the Discourse Map contribute to a more explicitunderstanding of the designer’s work? How did it facilitate a discussion?

To answer the second question first: Interaction design issues can at any timebe described using the Discourse Map because any model the designer usesdefines some aspect of interaction. The model is a validity claim within someform of rationality and may therefore be related to one or more of thedomains. The models claim to validity defines a starting point for a discursiveprocess in which complementary or opposing claims may be formulated.Both the process of defining the model and the process of establishing thediscourse facilitate a discussion of the design process itself.

How, then did the Discourse Map contribute to a more explicit understandingof the designer’s work?In all the cases I have described interaction design processes by the modelsthat users and designers have made, and I have described the discursiverelationships they established between models. No models have fallen outside,although some have been difficult to put into one category.I have used the Discourse Map at a general level to indicate areas ofknowledge interest by indicating the areas in which most modeling will takeplace. This lets me discuss styles of thinking. Also at a general level I havecompared the major discourses in different fields of design and founddifferent design strategies. I have applied these design strategies in detail ,followed them step by step and compared them. This lets me compare andevaluate similar design procedures at a detailed level

The major obstacle to developing these case descriptions has been decidinghow to categorize each model, especially the concrete and/or detailed ones.This is partly due to there not being conventions about how and where toapply each model and partly due to the holistic and discursive relationship


between individual interaction phenomena. As a result, the designers work hasat times been difficult to relate to only one domain at a time.However, the theory of discursive interaction design has proven itself as a toolfor analysis and strategic decisions in practical design work, and as a tool fordescribing and comparing design methods, models and discourses in research.

The fifth hypothesis of the thesis is validatedThe fifth sub-hypothesis was: It should be possible to describe and selectmethods and working procedures based on a theory that maps models ofinteraction phenomena.

In this chapter the Discourse Map was used to describe the navigationaldecisions of a design workshop, and the experiences gained were used toselect working procedures for a students final degree project, and explain itsprocess. Thereby the fifth hypothesis is validated.

7.0 Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the results of the thesis, discusses its goals, resultsand contributions, and suggests further work along this line of research.

CONCLUSION 253

7.1 A summary of the resultsThis thesis is concerned with product designers understanding of theinteractions between users and products in a context of use. Because ofcurrent developments in information and communication technology, it is nolonger enough to create optimal functionality plus a meaningful and pleasingexterior to a product. Product designers must also become better at designingfor the experience of using the product because products are becomingsignificant social actors. The questions this raises are: How does the designerinfluence interaction quality? And, how do designers influence a style ofinteraction in a social context?The major goal of this thesis therefore becomes the development of atheoretical basis for discussions about the constituent elements of interaction,their qualities and the resulting style of the totality. With the requirement thatsuch a theoretical basis should support a discussion and comparison ofinteraction design procedures since design processes, methods and techniquesconstitute the road towards realizing the right elements of interaction.

I choose to approach the problem from the philosophical perspective ofphenomenology because it assumes that experience is fundamental to ourunderstanding of the world. This perspective is already being applied inHuman Computer Interaction; it supports Semiotics and Product Semantics,and has gained popularity in Aesthetics research and Consciousness researchover the last decades.

The thesis is a work of applied research. Developing a theoretical basis fordiscussions about design practice in a new and diverse field such as interactiondesign, means combining and operationalizing existent theory from relatedfields. The thesis starts with a practical problem and then searches forapplicable theory, and explores its operational value to refine the problem andcreate a coupling between multiple theories and empirical phenomena. Theresult is a Theory of Discursive Interaction Design that is a synthesis of ideassuited to mapping and discussing the new, complex, and trans-disiplinary fieldof interaction design. In this chapter I will summarize and discuss the resultsof the thesis by addressing three questions:How are the goals of the thesis fulfilled?What is the value of the results?What are the contributions of the thesis?Finally, at the end of the chapter I suggest directions for further research.

How are the goals of the thesis fulfilled?The goals of the thesis have been fulfilled by exploring the concept of qualityand quality properties in relationship to interaction experiences, by exploringthe concept of interaction style in relationship to style theory and interactiondesign practice, and by developing the Theory of Discursive InteractionDesign and the Discourse Map and trying it out in practice.

Chapter 3 In search of interaction qualityChapter three starts the development of the thesis by reporting on empiricaland theoretical explorations that refine an understanding of the problem ofdesigning for interaction quality. The preliminary assumption is thatdesigning for interaction quality requires knowledge about which properties


of a product influence specific interaction experiences. But an early series ofusability tests for Tomra indicates that it is difficult to draw direct causalrelationships between properties and interaction experiences. Literaturereviews of an alternative design approach in the visual arts, architecture anddesign indicate that basic aesthetic design elements are understood and usedfor their expressive ability not for their objective characteristics. I propose thatwe may, similarly, explore the basic elements of interaction by treatingproduct properties as aesthetic elements of interaction experiences in stead ofas characteristics of a concrete product.However, since interaction is dynamic, not static like the visual image of aphysical product, dance theory is studied to identify time and movement asthe basic elements of a dynamic aesthetic language. Then follows an empiricalstudy, a literature review and another empirical study to explore differentaspects of this idea:In the “Progression bar” study it is found that test subjects use empathy witha machines anthropomorphous traits and a metaphorical understanding tocreate their own naïve explanations of goings on inside the machine. Whatappears as simple timing variations and behavior sequences from thedesigner’s perspective, becomes diverse, complex, and richly meaningfulexperiences in the eyes of the users. It is confirmed that timing and movementare important aesthetic design elementsMy study agrees with a similar study by Svanes that metaphor in an importantbasis for user’s understanding of interaction. Svanes concludes that both usersand designers employ kinesthetic thinking based on interaction gestalts.Kinesthetic thinking is different from visual or logical thinking because itrelies on directly perceived movement experiences. The smallest meaningfulentities when thinking about movement experiences may be called interactiongestalts. I choose to adopt these terms to differentiate dynamic aesthetics fromstatic/ visual aesthetics.Finally, in the “Kø-Fri” study I show that the semantic differential methodmay be used to quantify and compare the user’s experience of interaction,thus rendering it an object for design discussions. Measuring and comparinginteraction experiences using the semantic differential method confirms thatthe designer’s thinking in terms of behavior principle is different from theuser's experience of interaction.Because the users understanding often bears little resemblance to what thedesigner specifies, it is recommended that the designer apply an aestheticdesign approach. It should consist of kinesthetic discussions of basic designelements through models and real experiences, as a way of training thedesigner’s sensibility to the user's experience of interaction.

With this refined understanding of the research problem, I review an attemptat a complete description of interaction as a design object. A thesis by HedeMarkussen builds on the engineering design theories of design degrees offreedom, product properties and quality. It is unable to integrate an empathicdesign approach and unable to prescribe an interaction design process due tolack of knowledge about interaction quality and interaction quality properties.However, the idea of structuring knowledge similarly to the domain theory oftechnical systems is derived from this work. The domain theory of technicalsystems allows many divergent models of interaction and allows discussionsabout alternative design processes by following the trail of models thedesigner produces as he works.

CONCLUSION 255

The chapter concludes with a description of interaction in relationship to thetransformation theory model in engineering design. It is proposed thatinteraction constitutes the meaning giving process that defines and upholdsthe transformation system. Therefore, interaction is on a level of interpretationand signification different from the measurable effects in the transformationsystem. With this understanding of interaction, quality becomes an integraland inseparable fundamental phenomenon of interaction. It becomesimpossible to isolate quality from interaction and treat it in the same way asquality in relationship to product properties.

Chapter 4 The multiple concepts of interaction styleIn chapter 4, I explore the question of how designers influence interactionstyle. I begin with the term style itself. A general history of style theory istraced through dance, archeology and the visual arts, architecture and design.A common basis for current style theory is found in linguistics. But the termstyle is too diverse to be operational by itself, it lacks a general, formaldefinition. However, six questions by Hermerén focus the problems associatedwith the term. I attempt to answer the first four in order to approach anunderstanding of interaction style.1. Among a multitude of applications and perspectives on style I choose to

focus on the designers way of thinking and acting as a basis forexplaining the creation of style in products and ultimately the style ofuser interactions with products.

2. My basic presumption is that interaction style is our nature of knowing ina phenomenological sense.

3. A second attempt at a complete description of interaction is reviewed toanswer Hermerén’s question about what the anatomy of style is. In theQuality in Use project a paper by Ehn et.al. proposes a connectionbetween styles of thinking and quality in use, it fills the gap left in HedeMarkussen’s thesis, by describing a holistic, empathic and qualitativeunderstanding of interaction. It introduces Habermas theory ofcommunicative action as a basis for discussing the designers style ofthinking. However, this proposal lacks the detailing to become anoperational tool as it is.

4. The major problem with style is that it is used at many different levels andresolutions from single objects and people to whole cultures, and ages. Ipropose three levels of style thinking in the history of style theory itself.An Additive concept of style that is concerned with applying the rightelements of a style, a Characterizing concept of style that is concernedwith structuring style elements based on underlying principles, and aSocio-technical concept of style that sees style as a sign system resultingfrom a complex of cultural impulses at a certain time and place. Sections4.3, 4.4 and 4.5. explore the idea that interaction style would becomeeasier to understand by being aware of these three fundamental levels ofthinking in terms of style. It is found that this is true at a general level, butthat a design discussion about style at a practical level must be moredetailed and contextual. However, the categories that are used to define astyle at a practical level will be too specific to the type of product and thecontext in time, place and social setting to be generalizable andtransferable to other situations. The most concrete generalizablecategories seem to be the designers concepts and models, since theyrepresent the issues that are deemed important, in each case.


I conclude that fundamentally, interaction style is the designers and the usersway of thinking. When analyzing a product, the style of thinking is reflectedin the type of characteristics that are perceived. This implies that whendesigning, the style of thinking guides the choice of models, form ofrationality and values that are applied.

The negative consequence of a conscious approach to style is discussed as theproblem of styling. It is concluded that styling only is a problem at thecategorizing level of style thinking. To function as a design issue, style eitherrequires empathy by being submerged in the style, or a treatment of allaspects of experience as signs. Seen in the perspective of a political economyof the sign, interaction is dependent on users accepting and taking over thecreation of meaning that the designer initiates.

Chapter 5 Proposal for a Theory of Discursive Interaction DesignIn chapter 5, the findings of chapters three and four are synthesized into aTheory of Discursive Interaction Design.In chapter three it was found that interaction should not be designed startingwith product properties and qualities. To understand interaction, designersneed to train their sensitivity to the users way of experiencing interaction andunderstand how users come to create meaning with interaction. In the domaintheory of technical systems, categorization of the designers models has beenused as a way of mapping the designers way of working. This idea may betransferable to interaction design. It must be taken into account that althoughinteraction is realized by a system of physical artifacts and observable actions,interaction constitutes the meaning giving process that defines and upholdsthe system.In chapter four it was found that in order to systematically influenceinteraction style, designers need to find out how their style of thinkingbalances between objective, social and aesthetic forms of rationality, and atwhat level they think in terms of style. When analyzing a product, the style ofthinking is reflected in the type of characteristics that are perceived. Whendesigning, the style of thinking guides the choice of models and the validityclaims or values that are applied.

Since interaction design is the design of a meaning giving process, the Theoryof Discursive Interaction Design assumes that the experiencial aspects ofinteraction, as they are described by the user or the designer, inevitablygenerates models. The models may be mapped into four domains ofknowledge interests. This allows us to identify the value and meaning, of boththe users and the designers experience of interaction and to discuss thedesigners working procedures and style of thinking.The theory is visualized in a Discourse Map (Figure 140) which consists offour domains, the domain of interfaces, the domain of interaction gestalts, thedomain of intentions and the social domain. The domains describe subjectiveand social thinking at both the individual and the common, life-world levels.The relationship between the domains is discursive. The domains define eachother in a dialectical relationship. It is therefore not possible to find abeginning or end to a line of causal relationships between them.The models are graded by their degree of abstraction and simplification ofthe total interaction experience they are intended to describe.

CONCLUSION 257

The remainder of chapter five presents examples of models within eachdomain, and explains how the Discourse Map should be used.

SimpleAbstract Abstract

Simple

SimpleAbstract

ComplexSimpleAbstract

Complex


SocialRationality

AestheticRationality

Concrete Concrete


SocialDomain

InterfaceDomain

World

Figure 140: The Discourse Map is used for categorizing interaction models according to theirdegree of simplification and abstraction. The models constitute reference points for discourses

using social or subjective forms of rationality from individual or life-world perspectives.

Chapter 6 Application of the Theory of Discursive Interaction DesignThis chapter applies the Discourse Map as a tool for analyzing and discussingdifferent styles of thinking, different interaction design strategies and thepractical navigational decisions of designers.First I present an analysis of the style studies from chapter 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5.By mapping the three levels of style thinking in the Discourse Map it becomeseasier to discuss different knowledge interests at each level.The chapter then goes on to describe two cases of empathic interactiondesign. Here the Discourse Map is used at a much finer level of detailing tocompare and discuss the interaction design strategies and practical designprocedures we used in the cases.Through this process the Discourse Maps also provided new insight into thedesign strategies of the fields from which I had gathered inspiration andborrowed design procedures.


I conclude that the Discourse Map can be used successfully to evaluate anddiscuss cases at a detailed level and to map design strategies and styles ofthinking at a general level. The Discourse Map is able to describe interactiondesign activities. It identifies models and explicit and implicit assumptions inthe design process as well as the discourses between designer and material,user or other designers, thereby providing a basis for discussion. The majorobstacle to using the map is that many models, particularly concrete andcomplex ones often provide a basis for discourse in multiple domains. Sincethere are few conventions about the use of specific models it becomes a matterof interpretation what discourse should dominate the design analysis.

7.2 Discussion – what is the value of the results?The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design builds on proven structures ofthought, but transposes them to a new problem. This particular synthesis oftheories is new to the field of product design and constitutes a step towards aholistic humanistic perspective on interaction design, without loosing all thebenefits of a systematic design approach.The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design gathers theoretical support from:Engineering Design, Ergonomics, Human Computer Interaction, Semiotics,Product Semantics from Industrial Design, Style theory in Art andArchitecture, Archeology, Dance and Linguistics, and Phenomenology. Thesedifferent applied, theoretical, and philosophical fields border on productdesign, and already supply some form of theory or know-how. Although notan argument for the theory’s acceptability it indicates that the theory ofdiscursive interaction design should be compatible with other aspects ofproduct design, besides interaction design. The fact that many different fieldsaddress the same fundamental problem indicates that an essence of truth is tobe found. The multiple fields in themselves comprise a verification of thebasic problem description by acceptance because the same phenomena havebeen observed and the same needs for understanding have evolved in manydifferent contexts.

The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design may be criticized for not beingspecific about interaction, and for leaving the analysis of the designersdiscourse completely in the hands of the analyst. However, these properties ofthe theory may also be interpreted as its strength. By not specifying whatinteraction is, the Discourse Map is general enough to be applied directly toany kind of practical design. Also, not being specific allows any kind ofdefinition and any kind of design process or discourse while still mappingand categorizing what is going on into a generic structure of information.This ability is a strength in a field such as interaction design which is evolvingrapidly. In defense it is necessary to point out that the goal is to develop anoperational basis for discussions about practical interaction design not adescription of interaction or a prescription of interaction design.The Theory of Discursive Interaction Design structures knowledge aboutinteraction within the generic dimensions of complexity/simplicity,concreteness/abstraction, individuality/communality, and socialreasoning/subjective reasoning. These dimensions do not impose anyassumptions about the nature of interaction design, in themselves, and they areintuitively acceptable. However, the way they are ordered relative to eachother in the Discourse Map is based on a phenomenological/semioticperspective. The ordering is built on the assumption that knowledge must be

CONCLUSION 259

represented with models and that there is a discursive relationship betweenmodels. The acceptability of THIS assumption depends on understandingmodels and discourses as signs and a sign making process. I.e. I am using theconcept of models in a much wider form than usual in product design.

The theory of discursive interaction design operationalizes phenomena thatare not completely described within any single field or school of thought,therefore it is based on theories from a number of fields and designperspectives. Due to the number of theories, fields and schools involved I havebeen unable to treat them in detail. The theories I have applied have not beenstudied for internal or inter-relational consistency. I have not researchedliterature that critiques the theories I have based my work on, or followeddiscussions on the nuances of the theories within each field to understand thelogical inconsistencies and problems inherent to them. Although I havecovered several fields there are still many relevant theories and fields that havenot been taken into account:The theory of affordances, and related theory in cognitive psychology.Gibson, one of the founders of the movement must have had somerelationship to phenomenology. Still, I have chosen not to develop this aspectof the nature of interaction further as I lack the theoretical background.Art practice provides an interesting approach to describing interactionexperiences that I have barely referred to with a few models. Besides dance,the other performing arts provide interesting practical approaches as well astheory that should be highly relevant to interaction. I have chosen dance forit’s ability to isolate one aspect of interaction, but interaction must beunderstood in a totality. Other researchers have shown that there are lessons tobe learned from other performing arts. Brenda Laurel has compared HCI totheater, and Bruce Togazini has compared HCI to stage magic.Sociology and anthropology are vast fields that contain relevant theory formy problem. I have just barely opened a channel through Habermas, but thisis clearly only a beginning.

7.3 What are the contributions of the thesis?

Contributions to design scienceThe object of design activity can be fitted into a tree structure of knowledgeinterests as illustrated in Figure 141. This thesis focuses on the field ofinteraction, which complements the theory of machine systems, andcontributes to a general design methodology.


Figure 141: The object of design activity modified from Andreassen (1991)

Based on morphological statements about Design Science and a hierarchy ofdesign tasks, Hubka & Eder (1988 pp. 218-222) organize contributions todesign science according to the structure illustrated in Figure 142. In Hubka& Eder’s model, the Technical System (TS) is on the left side of thehorizontal axis. This forces a focus on the theory of technical systems.However, the model effectively organizes any contribution to design scienceby inserting the appropriate design object on the left side of the horizontalaxis. By including the whole transformation system, Hubka & Eder’s modeldescribes the design object for this thesis - the interaction between the humansystem, and the other sub-systems taking part in the transformation process.

Figure 142: The structure of design science. (after Hubka & Eder 1988)

This thesis contributes to two areas of Design Science. In the lower left area,of branch specific descriptions, it addresses the question of what isinteraction, quality and style. At the lower right it suggests how we may mapthe models, discourses and navigational decisions of designers.

Contributions to design practiceOn introducing the goals and hypothesis of this thesis I stated that byincreasing awareness and sensitivity to interaction issues, designers and userswould benefit in a number of ways. I would now like to argue the points I

CONCLUSION 261

listed in greater detail, taking into account the way the theory of discursiveinteraction design contributes:• Increased consciousness of interaction styles at a detailed level may

reduce the tendency to apply new interface technology only for the sakeof its functionality. With knowledge of different ways of modelinginteraction, the designer will be better equipped to identify and evaluatethe tradeoffs between the new technology and the earlier solutions in theperspective of an overall interaction style. The designer will be motivatedto ask what kind of interaction this new technology realizes for the user.

• By being aware of how current styles of thinking influence interactionstyle, the designer can point out new directions for interaction design inrelationship to general design trends and their underlying philosophies.This means that designers will be able to follow the application of newinterface technology and at an early stage identify emerging paradigms.The discourse map will help to keep track of the kind of models that arebeing used to describe interaction phenomena. These models representwhat is deemed important phenomena at present. With this knowledge thecompany will be able to provide up to date solutions, and users will bepresented with products that fit the direction of their thinking

• Awareness of interaction discourses will make it possible to describepersonal styles of interaction or of interaction design. Just as artists andvisual designers are aware of the style of their work, with the discoursemap interaction designers have a tool for describing their way of thinkingand working.

• It is not enough that a corporate identity provides an image in the usersmind, users must experience that products actually are what they seem.Knowledge about what influences interaction experiences will be of use asan element in corporate identity programs. The experience of using aninterface and the understanding of the product or technical system thatthe user gets from it should be controlled to contribute to a corporateidentity, and provide substantiation for the image.

Good interaction experiences should result in greater satisfaction withproducts in use by creating a general feeling of competence and ability instead of technology induced fear or distance. It is my hope that knowledge ofinteraction phenomena applied to product design will result in a higherdegree of user motivation by lowering the threshold of acceptance andincreasing the will to understand and learn. Consequently, products may havefewer and less severe failures, and companies will have more satisfiedcustomers.Although the results of the theory of discursive interaction design arepreliminary, and based on a superficial knowledge of the involved theories,application of the theory for analysis of design cases indicates that it realizesthe explication of designers work with qualitative phenomena of interaction.The proposed theory of discursive interaction design combines a number oftheories in a simple map of design models, thereby rendering a complex oftheories accessible for pedagogical and practical design purposes.The theory of discursive interaction design and the levels of interaction stylethinking provide the designer with a few general and simple points ofreference when thinking about his or her design work.The results complement the theory of technical systems widening the scopeand applicability of the transformation system model.


7.4 Further workFurther work on the material of this thesis may be done at both a theoretical, apedagogical and an operational level.

Consolidating the theoretical basis for the theory of discursive interactiondesignThe dimensions of complexity/simplification between the four domains arenot harmonized. For instance, the social domain is quite general incomparison to the domain of interaction gestalts and undefined at the borderto the domain of interfaces. Although I suggest where to place some models,in the Discourse Map, I do not build my categorization on a theory ofinteraction phenomena or design activity. Since the goal of developing themodels is to replicate some specific phenomena of interaction and the goal ofmapping them is to describe the design prosess, the final positioning ofmodels must be based on further studies of the nature of interaction.

As mentioned when discussing the value of the results, the theoretical base forthe theory of discursive interaction design needs to be studied and developedfurther in order to verify the model by logical consistency. Directions forsuch a theoretical study may be sociological theory in the direction Habermashas pointed out, theory and research methodology in cognitive psychology inthe direction of Gibson, and semiotic theory along the line of Wittgenstein’swork.

Expanding the theory of discursive interaction design to a general theory ofaesthetic designAlthough I have only focused on interaction, all phenomena that are apparentto the user may be evaluated for their impact on an interaction experience.The theory of discursive interaction design could be expanded to become ageneral theory of both visual esthetics and kinesthetics.

The results need a pedagogical treatmentAs the understanding of interaction quality is dependent on establishing acommon experiential basis in real world interactions, not just thinking aboutinteraction or looking at it, a book is not the right medium for propagatingthe results in a pedagogical form. A more suitable media would be interactivemultimedia simulations demonstrating phenomena for the reader toexperience directly. These could be distributed by CD-ROM or WWW.

Analysis and trends of current and coming interaction stylesOne could use the map and it’s focus on modeled properties as a startingpoint for analyzing the current situation and trends in interaction design style.What kind of product properties and interactions are the focus of attention atpresent, and what direction is the development taking?When interaction phenomena are made explicit such analysis and discussion iseasier to initiate and follow.

CONCLUSION 263

Systematic searching for new interaction modelsThe interaction domains are mapped with models because they are integral tothe design process and leave a trail through the project. This createsopportunity for a systematic search for appropriate models. It should bepossible to define the criteria for a good model, and start a process to find it.Also, the models developed in professional practice may be evaluated for theirscope of application, and value.

Recommending an interaction design procedureIn the cases I have described, I am implicitly prescribing a focus on detailed,concrete models and empathic interaction design. This position is based onmy understanding of current best practice in the field. I have not made anyattempt at a systematic survey of design practice. This is certainly a relevantproposal to which the Discourse Map would contribute.As time goes and the current phase of experimenting with design procedurescontinues a new set of values and an underlying philosophy is sure to emergewith the strength to create a new set of rules which we may follow. At presentempathic design, as the basis for development of meaningful products andactivities is a bid at a prescription, along with the design philosophy this thesisis built on. Whether it has staying power only time will show.

References

REFERENCES 267

ReferencesAlmgren, Bertil: “Stilbegrepp inom arkeologin” pp19-28 in "Om stilforskning/Researchon Style", Kungl.Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitetsakademien, Konferanser 9, ISBN 91-7402-137-0, Stockholm, 1983 (in swedish and german)

Andreasen, Mogens Myrup: “Design Methodology”, Seminar on Design Theory and it´sApplication, The Norwegian Academy of Technical Sciences, Trondheim, 1991

Andreasen, Mogens Myrup: “The Theory of Domains”, undated paper in course materialfor Design Methodology Ph.D. course 1995, IK-DTU / IPD-NTH, Trondheim, 1995

Andreasen, Mogens Myrup: “Modeling - The Language of the Designer”, Journal ofEngineering design, vol. 5, No 2, 1994

Andreasen, Mogens Myrup & Hein, Lars: “Integrert Produktutvikling” (Integrated ProductDevelopment), ISBN 82-00-18133-2, Universitets forlaget, Oslo, 1986

Banham, Reyner: “Theory and design in the first machine age”, ISBN 0 7506 0718 1,Butterworth-Heinemann, London, (1960) 1994

Baudrillard, Jean: “Design and Environment or How Political Economy Escalates intoCyberblitz” in “For the critique of the political economy of the sign”, Telos Press, 1981

Black, Allison & Buur, Jacob “GUI’s and SUI’s more of the same or somethingdifferent?”, paper presented at HCI International ´95, 6th International Conference onHuman-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, 1995

Brandt, Per Aage: “Objects signs and Works of Art - A semiotic study of Aesthesis”Short version in Parret Herman (Ed.) “Pierce and Value Theory”, John Benjamins,Amsterdam 1994

Breen, David: “Applications and Demonstrators”, p6. ECRC Today, http://www.ecrc.de/,Dec. 1994,

Butter, Reinhardt, Workshop and tutorial notes from “Product Semantics and VisualSemiotics in Design” 2.Conference on Product Semantics, University of Industrial ArtsHelsinki, 1991

Buur, Jacob “A theoretical approach to Mechatronics design”, Ph.D. thesis, Departmentof Engineering design, Danish Technical University, Kopenhagen, 1990

Buur, Jacob & Andreassen Mogens Myrup: “Design Models in Mechatronic ProductDevelopment”, Design Studies, Vol 10, No 3, Butterworth, 1989

Buur, Jacob & Windum, Jesper: “MMI Design - Man-Machine Interface”, ISBN87-87385-33-3, Danish Design Center, Copenhagen, 1994

Bødker, Susanne, “Through the Interface”, Hillsdale, Erlbaum, New Jersey (1991)


T.K.Capin, I.S.Pandzic, N.Magnenat Thalmann, D.Thalmann, “Realistic Avatars andAutonomous Virtual Humans in VLNET Networked Virtual Environments” in: VirtualWorlds in the Internet (R.Earnshaw and J. Vince, eds) IEEE Computer Society Press, (toappear in October 1998)

Capra, Fritjof: “The Turning Point - Science, Society and the Rising Culture”, ISBN0055 33 4572 9, Bantam, Doubleday, 1982

Crampton Smith, Gillian: “The Art of Interaction”, Proceedings of Doors of Perception1993, http://www.doorsofpercepption/doors/doors1/transcripts/cra_smi/cra_smi.html,Design Institute, Netherlands

Cushman, W and Rosenberg, D.J: “Human Factors in Product Design”, ISBN 0-444-89031-9, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991

Damodaran, L.:”User involvement in system design”, in "Data Processing", 25 (6), pp6-23, 1983 (accordng to Hede Markussen 1995)

Dondis, Donis A. “A primer of visual literacy”, ISBN 0-262-54029-0, MIT press,Massachusets, 1973, 13.printing 1993

Dormer, Peter: “The Meanings of Modern Design”, Thames & Hudson, London, 1990

Ehn P., Meggerle T., Steen O., Svedemar M., “What kind of car is a sales supportsystem - on styles, artifacts and quality in use”, Dept. Of Informatics, Lund University,Sweden (presented at Computers in Context 95 in Aarhus an onhttp://qualitheque.ics.lu.se) 1995

Enkvist, Nils Erik: “Stilforskning och stilteori”, Lund, Gleerup, 1974(according to Hemerén)

Enkvist, Nils Erik: “Något om begrepp och metoder i språkvetenskaplig stilforskning” in"Om stilforskning/Research on Style", Kungl.Vitterhets Historie ochAntikvitetsakademien, Konferanser 9, ISBN 91-7402-137-0, Stockholm, 1983 (inswedish and german)

Foster, Susan Leigh: “Reading Dancing: Bodies and subjects in contemporary Americandance”, Berkley, LosAngeles, 1986 (according to Hammergren 1991)

Franke, H-J.: “Konstruktionsmethodik und Konstruktionspraxis - eiene kritischeBetrachtung”. Proceedings of ICED85, Hamburg, Hurista, Zürich 1985 (in Andreassen1991)

Franko, Mark: “The Dancing Body in Renaissance Choreography (c1416-1589)”,Birmingham, Alabama, 1986 (according to Hammergren 1991)

REFERENCES 269

Føllesdal, Dagfinn: “The Lebenswelt in Husserl” in Haaparanta: "Language, Knowledge,and Intentionality", Acta Philosophica Fennica, Vol 49, Helsinki, 1990(according to Ylimaula 1992)

Gagné, R. M. Et al., “Psychological Principles in system development”, PergamontPress, New York, 1962

Granjean, E: “Fitting the Task to the Man”, ISBN 0 85066 7, Taylor & Francis, London1986

Habermas, Jürgen, “The theory of communicative action” Vol. 1 and 2, Beacon press,Boston, Mass. USA, 1984

Hammergren, Lena: “Form and Meaning in Dance- a study of the concept of style with acomparative style analysis of Mary Wigman’s and Birgit Åkeson’s Solo Dances”, (inSwedish with English summary), ISBN 91 86434 11 X, PhD thesis, Institusjonen förteater- och film vetenskap, Univ. Of Stockholm, 1991

Hede Markussen, Tom: "Et teoribasert handlingsgrunnlag for betjeningsdesign", PhDdisertation, ISBN 87-90130-06-5, Denmarks Technical University, København, 1995 (indanish)

Heidegger, Martin, “Poetry, Language, Thought “, ISBN 06-090430-5, Harper Colophon,NewYork, 1971

Hemerén, Göran: “Stilbegreppets logik” pp 187-216 in "Om stilforskning/Research onStyle", Kungl.Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitetsakademien, Konferanser 9, ISBN 91-7402-137-0, Stockholm, 1983 (in swedish and german)

Holand E., Masdalen K.O., Schrøder J., Spone A. “Norsk Forening for Fartøyværn, 10-Årsberetning juni 1985 - juni 1995”, Norsk Forening for Fartøyværn, Oslo, 1995

Hongo K.: “Impact of theories of Design on designers Psychology and Philosophy”,Proceedings of ICED85, Hamburg, Hurista, Zürich 1985 (according to Andreassen 1991)

Hongo, K.: “On the significance of the theory of design”. Proceedings of InternationalSymposium on Design and Synthesis , Tokyo 1984 (according to Andreassen 1991)

Hubka, V & Eder, “Theory of Technical Systems - a total concept theory for engineeringdesign” ISBN 3-540-17451-6, Springer verlag, Berlin, 1988

Hurlen, Lars: “User study of the computer screens in an intranet based project informationsystem”, Masters thesis in Norwegian, Dept. of Machine Construction and MaterialTechnology, NTNU, 1998

Hysing, Alhert: “Det er IT det gjelder, det er alder som teller” in Computerworld Norge,nr18B, Vol.16, IDG Communications, Oslo, 1998


Ishii, Hiroshi & Ulmer, Brygg: “Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces betweenPeople, Bits and Atoms” CHI97 conference paper, ACM, 1997

Johansen, Jørgen Dines and Larsen, Svend Erik: “Tegn i Bruk”, ISBN 87 89 537 55 6,Amanda, Danmark 1994

Johanneson, Kurt: “Litteratur vetenskapen och stilforskning”, in "Omstilforskning/Research on Style", Kungl.Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitetsakademien,Konferanser 9, ISBN 91-7402-137-0, Stockholm, 1983 (in swedish and german)

Johnson, M: “The Body in the Mind”, Univ. Of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987(according to Svanes 1997)

Jørgensen K.A.: “Paradigms for research work”, Instituttet for Produksjon, ÅlborgUniversitetets Center, Ålborg 1992

Jørgensen, Kjell Gall; “Semiotikk - en introduksjon”, ISBN 87-00-15968-9, Gyldendal,Copenhagen, 1993

Kammersgaard, John: “Four different perspectives on Human-computer Interaction”, ISSN0105 8517, Computer science department, Aarhus Univ., 1985

Kandinsky, W: “Complete Writings on Art”, DaCapo, New York, 1994(according to Svanes 1997)

Kantowiz, Barry & Sorkin, Robert: “Human Factors: Understanding People-SystemRelationships”, ISBN 0-471-09594-X, Wiley, , New York, 1983

Kirwan, Barry & Ainsworth, L.K: “A Guide to Task Analysis”, Taylor & Francis,London, 1992

Kloster, Johan, “Kystkultur - en begrepsdrøfting” in "Norsk Sjøfartsmuseums Årbok1996" UDK39:656.6, Norsk Sjøfartsmuseum, Oslo, 1996

Kusch, Martin,”Language as Calculus vs Langage as Universal Medium”, KluwerAcademic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1989

Kuhn, T: “The structure of scientific revolution”, Chicago, 1962(according to Ehn et al 1995)

Kyng, Morten & Greenbaum, Joan: “Participatory design” Danish Technical UniversityTutorial notes, Computer Science Dep., Aarhus University 1994(based on the book Greenbaum & Kyng eds. “Design at Work: Cooperative Design ofComputer Systems” Laurence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991)

Laban, Rudolf: “Modern Educational Dance”, ISBN 00 7121 1381 9, originally published1948, 3.edit. MacDonald & Evans, Plymouth, UK, 1975

REFERENCES 271

Laban, Rudolf & Lawrence, F.C., “Effort – Economy of human movement”, ISBN 07121 0534 4, originally published in 1947, 2.Edit. MacDonald & Evans, London, 1974

Lakoff, G: “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things”, University Press, Chicago, 1987(according to Svanes 1997)

Laurel, Brenda: “Computers as Theatre”, Addison-Wesley, Massachusets,(1991) revised2.Ed. 1993

Maaß, Susanne and Oberquelle, Horst: “Perspectives and Metaphors for Human-ComputerInteraction”, in Floyd, C., Züllighoven, H.,Budde, R.,Keil-Slawik, R. eds.: "SoftwareDevelopment and Reality Construction", Springer, 1992

Maturana, Humberto R.: “Biology of cognition”, 1970 (reprinted in Maturana & Varela1980)

Maturana, Humberto R., & Varela, Francisco, “Autopoiesis and Cognition: Therealization of the living”, Dortrecht, Reidel, 1980(according to Winograd & Flores 1986)

Michotte, A: “The Perception of Causality”, Methuen, London, 1963(according to Svanes 1997)

Mohus, Petter: “Rapport om designprogrammet for de XVII Olympiske VinterlekerLillehammer 1994” , ISBN 82-452-0007-2, Kultur Departementet og Norsk Form, Oslo,1994

Mørup, Mikkel: “Design for Quality”, ISBN 8790130-00-6, Institute for EngineeringDesign, Technical University of enmark, Lyngby, 1993

Nielsen, Jacob: “Usability Engineering”, ISBN 0-12-518405-0, Academic press, SanDiego, California, 1993

Nielsen, Petter: “Produktion af Viten - en praktisk metodebog”, ISBN 87-571-1664-4,Teknisk Forlag, København, 1996

Norman, Donald: “Design of Every Day Things”, ISBN 0-385-26774-6, Doubleday, NewYork, 1988

Norman, Richard: “Reasons for actions”, New York 1971, pp.63-64 according toHabermas 1984

NTNU: “NTNU Profilhåndbok 01/1997” , Informasjonsavdelingen NTNU, Trondheim,1997

Osgood C, Suci G, Tannenbaum P.: “The Measurement of Meaning” , ISBN 0-252-74539-6, Univ. Of Illinois Press (1957) 4th. edition 1978


Osgood, C: “The nature and measurement of meaning” Psychological Bulletin, 1952, pp197-237 reprinted in"Semantic Differential Technique - a source book" Snider, J &Osgood, C (Eds), Aldine, Chicago, 1969

Patch, Kimberly and Smalley, Eric: “Fanget i Nettverket” ("Captured in the Network" anabridged and translated version of an article in Network World, USA) ComputerworldNorge, nr25, 1998

Pedersen, Birgit: “Undersøkelse av stilfaktorer i interaksjonsdesign”, Masters thesis, Dept.of Produktdesign Engineering, NTNU, 1997

Pile, John: “The dictionary of 20th Century Design” ISBN 0-306-80569-3, DaCapo,NewYork, 1994 p255

Pirsig, Robert: “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintnance - an enquiry into values”,ISBN 0-553-10310-5, Bantam, 1974

Pirsig, Robert: “Lila - an inquiry into morals”, ISBN 0 593 02507 5, Transworld,London, 1991

Preece J., Rogers Y., Sharp H., Benyon D., Holland S., Carey T.: “Human ComputerInteraction”, Addison-Wesley Longman, Essex UK, (1994) 1997

Pye, David: “The Nature and Art of Craftmanship”, ISBN 0 521 29356 1, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge (1968) 1988

Pye, David: “The Nature and Aesthetics of Design - a design handbook”, ISBN 0-906969-27-1, Herbert Press, London, 1978

Rasmussen, J et al.: “Cognitive Systems Engineering”, Wiley, New York, 1994

Redmond-Pyle, D and Moore, A.: “Graphical User Interface Design and Evaluation, apractical process”, ISBN 0-13-315193-X, Prentice Hall, UK, 1995

Rekimoto, Jun: “TransVision: A Hand-held Augmented Reality System for CollaborativeDesign” proceedings of Virtual Systems and Multi-Media (VSMM)'96, 1996

Salin, B: 1904 “Die altgremanishe Thierornamentik”, Stockholm, 1922 (according toAlmgren 1982)

Salvendy G. Ed: “Handbook of Human Factors”, Wiley, NewYork, 1987

Sanders M.S. & McCormick E.J.: “Human Factors in Engineering and Design”,McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1993

DeSausmarez, Maurice: “Basic Design: The Dynamics of Visual Form” ISBN 0 90696922, Herbert press, London, 1964 15th reprint & revised edition 1990

REFERENCES 273

Schneiderman, Ben: “Direct Manipulation: a Step Beyond Programming”, IEEEComputer Society, 1983

Schorske, Carl E: “Fin-de-Siécle Vienna, Politics and Culture” Random House, NewYork, 1981 (according to Ylimaula 1991)

Schuler, D., Namioka, A. eds.: “Participatory design: Principles and practices”, ISBN 0-8058-0952-X, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, 1993

Scruton, R: “The aesthetics of Architecture”, Princeton Univ. Press, USA 1979(according to Ehn et.al 1995)

Shearman, John: “Mannerism”, Harmondsworth, 1967(according to Hammergren 1991)

Steen Hansen, Hanne: “Danfoss - Arven fra Mads”, ISBN 87-569-7864-2, SchultzInformation, Albertslund 1994

Stolterman, Erik: “Guidelines or Aesthetics: design learning strategies”, Design StudiesVol 15 No 4, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994

Suchman, Lucy A.: “Plans and Situated Actions - the problem of human machinecommunication”, ISBN 0-521-33739-9, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987

Svanes, Dag: “Kinaesthetic Thinking: The tacid dimention of interaction design”, in"Computers in Human Behaviour" Vol 13, No 4, pp 443-463, Elsevier 1997

Swanborn, PG: “Methoden van sociaal-wetenschapplijk onderzoek; inleiding inontwerpstrategieën” 3.ed, Meppel: Bloom, 1984

Tjalve, Eskild: “Systematisk utforming av industriprodukter” , ISBN87-500-1697-0Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen 1976 (2.ed 1983, also published as “A shortintroduction to Industrial Design”, Newnes-Butterworth, London 1979)

Togazini, Bruce: “TOG on Interface” ISBN 0-201-60842-1, Addison Wesley/AppleComputer USA, 1993

Vavik, Tom & Øritsland, Trond Are: “Mennesklige aspekter i Design - en innføring iErgonomi”, preliminary edition , IPD, NTNU, 1997, Revised 1. Edition 1999

Varela, Francisco: “Bevisthet”, Interview in Flux 9, in Norwegian 1995

Verplank, Bill et al.: “Observation and Invention: The use of Scenarios in InteractionDesign” InterCHI´93 Tutorial notes, Amsterdam, 1993

Vihma, Susann: “Products as representations, A semiotic and aesthetic study of designproducts”, ISBN 951-9384-89-8, University of Art and Design Helsinki, 1995


Vike, Halvard: “Et monument over en million tanker : historieoppfatninger, antikvariskpraksis og kulturformidling ved Hardanger fartøyvernsenter”, ISBN: 82-12-00124-5,Program for forskning om kulturminnevern, (FOK-programmets skriftserie nr.6), Norgesforskningsråd - NAVF, Oslo 1993

Wilson, J.R. & Corlett, E.N: “Evaluation of Human Work - a practical ergonomicsmethodology”, Taylor & Francis, London 1990

Winograd, T & Flores, F: “Understanding Computers and Cognition - a new foundationfor design”, ISBN 0-201-11297-3, Albex, USA, 1986

Winograd, Terry (ed.): “Bringing Design to Software”, ISBN 0-201-85491-0, ACM Press& Addison-Wesley, 1996

Wittgenstein, L.: “Philosophical investigations”, Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1953) 1963(according to Ehn et.al. 1995)

Ylimaula, Anna-Maija: “Origins of style - Phenomenological approach to the essence ofstyle in the architecture of Antoni Gaudi, C.R. Mackintosh and Otto Wagner”, PhDdisertation, ISBN 951-42-3330-1, Univ. Of Oulu, Finland, 1992

Zajonc R.B.: “The process of Cognitive Tuning in Communications” in Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, vol.61, no2, pp 159-167, 1960(according to by Ehn et.al 1995)

Zeitler, Rudolf: “Om stilforskningen i konsthistorien - Särskilt om utveclingstankensinflytande på stilteorierna”, pp 181-185 in "Om stilforskning/Research on Style",Kungl.Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitetsakademien, Konferanser 9, ISBN 91-7402-137-0, Stockholm, 1983 (in swedish and german)

Øritsland, Trond Are: “Paraleller mellom modeller og metoder i Ergonomi og Engineeringdesign” (Parallels between models and methods in Ergonomics and Engineering design) innorwegian, report for PhD course in engineering design methodology, NTH, 1995

REFERENCES 275

List of abbreviations

AEnv – Active EnvironmentDTU - Denmarks Technical UniversityGUI - Graphic User InterfaceHCI - Human Computer InteractionHuS – Human SystemIPD - Institutt for Produktdesign / Department of Product Design EngineeringIT - Information TechnologyLMA - Laban Movement AnalysisMMI - Man Machine InteractionNFR - Norges Forskningsråd / The Norwegian Reserch CouncilNTNU - Norges Teknisk Naturvitenskaplige Universitet / The NorwegianUniversity of Technology and ScienceSUI - Solid User InterfaceTrP – Transformation ProcessTrS – Transformation SystemTS – Technical SystemTUI - Tangible User InterfaceWDK - Workshop Design KonstruksjonWIMP - Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer

Appendix A – Paper for ICED 99

This paper is accepted for the 12th International Conference on EngineeringDesign “The Power of Engineering Design” in Munich, 24.-26. August 1999under the topic of “Design Process Theory”. It presents some of theempirical studies and conclusions that are developed further in chapter 3 ofthe thesis.

APPENDIX A: PAPER FOR ICED 99 279

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGNICED 99 MUNICH, AUGUST 24-26, 1999

HARNESSING THE EXPRESSIVE POWER OFINTERACTION – A NEW APPROACH TO QUALITY IN

USE

Trond Are Øritsland

Keywords: Interaction Design, Quality in Use, Product behavior, Esthetics,Semantics

IntroductionWith the proliferation of microprocessors, mechatronic products with soliduser interfaces (SUI’s) have inherited the usability problems andopportunities of computers, as well as creating some new ones of their own[1]. In human computer interaction (HCI), it has been found that empathywith the users perception and understanding is necessary for designing usableproducts. Visual esthetic methods from art and industrial design are applied tographic user interface (GUI) design. These proven basic design methodsfacilitate a qualitative judgment of the totality by sensitizing designers toissues that are difficult to relate to individual product properties [2]. Althoughkinesthetic phenomena are different from visual esthetics, it is the claim of thispaper that engineering designers will benefit from a similar approach whendesigning for interaction quality with mechatronic products. To substantiatethis, three studies are presented that explore the expressive power ofinteraction phenomena with a mechatronic product, a GUI dialog box, and asimple electronic product. It is concluded that the study of users experiencesof interaction phenomena should be included in a systematic interactiondesign procedure, and be part of the quality mindset of the designer.

Usability metrics prove insufficient as a basis for interaction design onTomra™ recycling machinesIn engineering design, Mørup [4] states that quality in use (Q) is a part of thecustomer’s qualitative perception of the product. The customer experiences Qwhen interacting with the product. The experience is elicited by qualityproperties (Qpr) within the product. Applying this understanding tointeraction quality we usability tested a series of food container, recyclingmachines from Tomra Systems a.s.™ By measuring the frequency andoutcome of predetermined events, we could determine the success of taskslike, placing bottles into the machine with the bottom first, or positioning thebar code on cans up and into the machine. However, a number of moresupple and complex user-reactions became apparent during the tests. Thesewere difficult to account for by connecting them directly to qualityproperties. The users were unable to describe rational motives for their actionswithin the conventional format of a thinking-aloud usability test andretrospective interview; “…the single most valuable usability engineering


method.” according to Nielsen [5]. For example we observed users reactingto perceptions of the machines attitude and helpfulness, it was perceived asboth “intelligent”, “cool” and “obstinate”. These user responses wereconsistent with the way product image and style is identified in industrialdesign. In another case, Tomra™ wanted to design a machine that reduced thecycling time for users to put in bottles, a figure of approximately 1,5 seconds.It was found that, although very few users were quick enough to feed bottlesfaster than the machine could accept them, users still commented that themachine could be faster. Was this due to the users hearing or seeing thesorting mechanism after the bottle was accepted? No conclusive evidence wasfound, because it was difficult to identify what specific quality properties wereinvolved.The Tomra™ machines had very little interface graphics and extremelysimple screen interaction; in addition, we observed few users basing theiractions on the screen, so their reactions must come from other sources. Sincethe machines are mechatronic in stead of purely electronic, some of thefeedback was in the form of sounds and mechanical actions. To explore suchfeedback further, I wanted to apply an esthetic approach similar to that of artand industrial design. The art form that most nearly isolates dynamic estheticproperties is dance. From an esthetic analysis of dance [3], I identified twoproperties that play an important role in establishing the expressive power of adynamic process: time and movement (or the use of space).

Users interaction experiences are difficult to relate directly to productproperties in a graphic user interfaceThere are different aspects to esthetic movement. It may be concrete, amovement in space[3], or an abstract conception of movement such asimagining the flow of electricity through wires [7] or a static, graphicdepiction of movement [2]. Movement, and its components, space and time,work together to create esthetic form, rhythm and acceleration as the basis fora rich variety of expressions and styles of dance [3]. I would expect toobserve similar phenomena with interface feedback. So how do users interpretthe behavior of simple feedback based on movement? To isolate theexperience of a simple visible movement as it varies with timing, I created aninteraction sequence based on a WIMP style (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer)computer screen dialog box. Six graphically equal copies of a progressionbar indicator (fig.1) were made in Macromedia Director 4.0 . Ten people, allstaff, faculty or students at our department participated in a study. Theyactivated the dialog boxes one at a time, and described their experiences,impressions and thoughts to the test facilitator. Six temporal behaviors wereimplemented.

It was found that users interpreted similar temporal behaviors very differently.E.g., one behavior was an even movement lasting 2,4 seconds. Anothermovement of the same duration began slowly, and then accelerated over thelast half of the scale. Reactions to the first varied greatly, depending on priorexperience. But all the users commented that acceleration towards the endmade the computers task seem quicker or simpler even though the duration ofthe sequence was the same as the first one. One user commented: " What inthe world! (Surprised) First, I thought that it went really slow but then, … -quite comfortable - quickly finished. My personal time scale tolerates 2seconds in the beginning better than in the end."


In two other simulations the performance was slower: The first had an evenmovement with four alternating 2 second and 1 second pauses, for a totalduration of 8.4 seconds. The second an even progress at a slow but steady andincremental movement, and an 8 second pause before displaying the startmenu again. Total duration was 22.5 seconds. Some saw the stops as signs thatthe machine was doing heavy calculations, and was unable to update thescreen, which led to negative attitudes, others accepted them, and did not react.The second simulation was even slower, but seemed less irritating. A user said,"Goes slow but evenly - small steps seem like the program is achievingsomething. If it had been completely smooth I would not have believed it wastrue, that it was just something being shown"Finally, I made two simulations that were really slow, and indicative of apossible fault:Retarding the frame-rate setting in Director produced the effect of aprogressively slower and rougher movement of the bar. Finally, a full secondpause before displaying the message "Execution interrupted". Total Duration14.1 seconds. The other one had a 2-second pause halfway, then a 20-secondfreeze-up of the machine just before the end. After completing any registeredmouse clicks the progression continued normally to the finish. Total duration24.4 seconds. This is understood as a problem by all the users after only twoor three seconds of the 20-second freeze. They feel they have an emotionalinvestment in its finishing, and react with irritation at the delay. Many arehovering over the cancel button, but feel they have to see it through. On a webbrowser they say they would have hit "Stop" after just a few seconds, but if theapplication were doing something important to them they would cross theirfingers and go for coffee with a sinking feeling.Reacting to the first one, an especially eloquent user said: ".... started quickly,the speed decreased - experiencing suspense - The Hitchcock feeling, handsgripping the table, using mind power to bring it home. - The momentum fromthe speed in the beginning makes me feel like it will make it."

Figure 1: A sample screen: The progression bar is moving, the users pointer hovers over thecancel button

The results indicate that users draw their information from the interconnectionof feedback, not single reactions. The subjects expectations are based on priorexperiences. Explanations are formulated as soon as the subject identifiessome type or category of movement, i.e. a style of movement. Theseexplanations then shape the subjects empathic understanding of the machinesprocesses, and contributes to further interpretation. The subjects createmetaphors to help them understand or make anthropomorphic analogies. E.g."The computer is working heavily" or "The computer is encountering a


problem". By studying the metaphors the esthetic elements of speed, breaksand continuity, rhythm, momentum, respite, and dynamic energy wereidentified. Users experience the results of these esthetic elements as if themachine were working quickly, surely, heavily, encountering problems,locking or freezing. From the perspective of making the Director files, it wasdifficult to predict this wealth of expressive potential, as the programming wasonly concerned with setting the frame-rate of the animation. To overcome thisobstacle, to harness the expressive power of the interaction it seems necessaryfor the designer to develop a sensitivity to the users perception of theinteraction. Such sensitivity may be trained by discussing esthetic phenomena[2], and verified by exploratory usability testing [5].

Designers should employ kinesthetic thinking, and measure the usersaffective responseIn HCI, Svanes [7] has studied how users think about abstract interactionexperiences as artifacts: “… what is being compared are the actual artifacts asthey are experienced in interaction. A possible term for the artifacts asperceived reality could be Interaction Gestalts.” Svanes proposes the term"...Kinesthetic Thinking to signify direct cognitive operations on tactile-kinesthetic sense experiences, i.e. on Interaction Gestalts". He finds that theusers perception of GUI behavior only exists as objects through the usersexperience of the interaction like the phenomenological worldviews ofHeidegger and Merleu-Ponty. He finds that kinesthetic thinking seemsindependent of time and state. Meaning-full wholes may be mentallycompared, superimposed etc. as if they were images. Based on Svanes work itseems reasonable to differentiate the design of visually static artifacts from thedesign of interactions with dynamic artifacts. He shows that we can identifyinteraction gestalts by analyzing the users metaphors. Thereby confirmingand formalizing the observations from the Tomra and Progression Barstudies.

Figure 22: A student’s design proposal for a toll-road payment device was animated on a touch-screen simulation

Mørup [4] states that the users experience of quality is based on bothcognition and affect. He mentions the affective responses of emotions,feelings, moods and likes. But how can the designer explore the expressivenuances of interaction gestalts in a systematic way? How do we measure andstudy the affective responses of interaction experiences? I applied the conceptof interaction gestalts in practice in a student design project for MicroDesigna.n.s. The product is a small electronic device for automatic payment on tollroads. Because it has two different modes of payment, the user may need tocheck or change the state of the device while driving. The design specifies two


light emitting diodes (LED’s) and one button. The LED’s are dark in idlestate. When activated the LED corresponding to the current state, red or green,lights up, it is then possible for the user to change states. The context ofdriving a car up to a toll station imposes the need for quick and certainoperation of the interface.Inspired by Laban’s movement analysis in dance [3], I hoped to determinethe best behavior of the product from an affective perspective, by evaluatingdifferent state transitions using the semantic differential method developed byOsgood [6]. Based on the rendering in figure 2, simulations of four differenttransition behaviors were developed in Macromedia Director 4.0 . Thevariables were the LED’s timing and flash frequency. The simplicity of theinteraction with the device made it possible to explore the practical limits ofperceiving interaction gestalts. To achieve this we first created two behaviorsthat we felt were principally different interaction gestalts: A - Pressing thebutton toggles between red and green. B - Pressing the button and holding itin until timeout makes the lights change. Then, two variations were made onthe second principle: B2 - Hold the button in for 1.1 seconds, the old LEDflashes four times, then the new LED lights up. B3 - Hold button in for 1.1seconds - the new LED flashes four times while the old one glows steadily,then the state changes and the new LED glows steadily while the old one goesdark. To test for sensitivity these two minor variations were repeated, beingpresented as a fifth B22 and sixth B32 design proposal to the subjects. If theusers imagined differences influenced the results as much as the realdifferences, we could say that the lower level of sensitivity had been exceeded.The simulations were tested on a touch-screen monitor. Ten subjectsparticipated in the study. The subjects were asked to explore the simulationsone at a time and verbalize their initial impressions. At the same time thesubject was asked to fill in a questionnaire consisting of six semanticdifferential tests comprised of 23 semantic differentials on seven point scales.(Fig.3)

score: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 good bad

2 active passive

3 beautiful ugly

4 comfortable uncomfortable

5 strong weak

6 relaxed tense

Figure 3: A section of the semantic differential score chart. The score is a position number usedfor analysis. The user rates an experience for similarity to one or the other adjective without

seeing the numbers

The results confirm that we can measure and explore the expressive nuancesof interaction gestalts using the semantic differential method. It was foundthat users rated versions A & B as the most different. Versions B and B2 wereperceptibly different, while deviations between the two copies B2/B22 andB3/B32 were as great as the deviations between the two versions that had actualdifferences, indicating that the limit of sensitivity was exceeded. I comparedstandard deviations of the responses to each individual adjective pair andfound that the results varied between 2,0 and 0,3. This indicates that some ofthe adjective pairs were better suited for measuring this interaction than


others. Sensitivity may be increased by both tailoring the adjectives andemploying interaction gestalts formulated as sentences. For example verbalresponses indicate that users thought of A, B and B2 as conceptually different,because the flashing of B2 was such a big affective difference from the staticwaiting experience of B. We might call these three, different interactiongestalts: A - "switching", B - "holding-waiting", and B2 - "pressing-flashing".It was found that a single Q-property could contribute to different interactionexperiences within its range of variability. The complex causality ofinteractions that seems to underlie this, indicates that the best operationalapproach might be to establish metrics concerning the users experience, andthen use the metrics to train the designers sensibility to similar phenomena.With experience, the designer will be able to experiment by varying Q-properties and searching for a desired expressive effect at an early stage,before testing on users. This approach is similar to the way identity and styleis developed and discussed in art and industrial design. What Mørup [4] refersto as the designers Quality mind-set, “…the superior and generic knowledge,visions and attitudes towards quality and DFQ…” (Design for Quality),seems similar to these concepts of style. Further research should thereforefocus on developing theory and methods for systematic design withinteraction gestalts, as a supplement to Q-properties, and developing an overallunderstanding of how the designers quality mindset influences interactionstyle.

ConclusionInteraction experiences can be observed directly by the users reactions andindirectly by quantifying and categorizing the users verbal representations ofexperiences. Quality properties such as timing and movement are not onlylinked to the users experience of quality in use through function andperformance factors, but also contribute to creating interaction gestalts thatinfluence the users metaphorical understanding and affect for the product.The complex, interrelated reactions to interaction indicate that a designprocedure should include exploratory work by the designer, on therelationships between user experiences and quality properties, in addition touser testing. This necessitates training the designers sensitivity to interactionexperiences. The designers quality mind set must therefore include interactionissues. Future research focused on developing theory and methodology ofinteraction experiences could start by exploring the way the style ofinteraction is linked to the designers quality mind set.

References1. Buur, Jacob & Black Allison “GUI´s and SUI´s more of the same or

something different?”, Proceedings of HCI International ´95, 6thInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, 1995

2. Crampton Smith, Gillian: “The Art of Interaction”, Proceedings of Doorsof Perception, Doors1, http://www.doorsofperception.com, Design Institute,Netherlands 1993,

3. Hammergren, Lena: “Form and Meaning in Dance - a study of theconcept of style with a comparative style analysis of Mary Wigman's andBirgit Åkeson's Solo Dances” (in Swedish with English summary), ISBN91 86434 11 X, Ph.D. thesis, Institusjonen för teater- och film vetenskap,Univ. of Stockholm, 1991


4. Mørup, Mikkel: “Design for Quality”, ISBN 8790130-00-6, Ph.D. thesis,Institute for Engineering Design, Technical University of Denmark,Lyngby, 1993 (pp.89-113)

5. Nielsen, Jacob: “Usability Engineering”, ISBN 0-12-518405-0,Academic press, San Diego, California, 1993 (pp.165-200)

6. Osgood C, Suci G, Tannenbaum P. “The Measurement of Meaning”,ISBN 0-252-74539-6, Univ. Of Illinois Press 1957 fourth. edition 1978,

7. Svanes, Dag: “Kinesthetic Thinking: The tacit dimension of interactiondesign”, in “Computers in Human Behavior” Vol. 13, No 4, Elsevier1997 (pp. 443-463)

Trond Are ØritslandNTNU - Norwegian University of Technology and ScienceIPD - Department of Product Design EngineeringKolbjørn Hejes vei 2B7491 TrondheimNorwayPhone: + 47 73 59 01 00Fax: + 47 73 59 01 10E-mail: [email protected]

APPENDIX B: TERMINOLOGY 287

Appendix B – Terminology

This appendix presents common definitions and my own interpretations andspecialized applications of the important concepts in this thesis.


Appendix B – Terminology

Aesthetic experienceAesthetics is the study of beauty and taste. The aesthetic object is an object ofsensory experience and enjoyed as such: it is heard, seen, or imagined insensory form. The aesthetic object is at the same time contemplated: it’sappearance is a matter of intrinsic interest and studied not merely as an objectof sensory pleasure but also as the repository of significance and value.("aesthetics" Encyclopædia Britannica Onlinehttp://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?artcl=106009&seq_nbr=1&page=n&isctn=3[Accessed May 20, 1999])

Artifact1. Something created by humans usually for a practical purpose2. Something characteristic of or resulting from a human institution or

activity3. A product of artificial character (as in a scientific test) due usually to

extraneous (as human) agency(“artifact” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=artifact [Accessed May 20, 1999])

For the purpose of this thesis an artifact may be understood as a man madephysical object or a mental representation of some man made phenomena.Artifacts may be considered as dynamic or static, where a dynamic artifactprovides a variable response when activated, while activation and responsedoes not happen for a static artifact

Context1. The parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw

light on its meaning.2. The interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.(“context” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=context [Accessed May 20, 1999])

In this thesis “context” is used to denote a physical context of objects andtheir relationship to each other, a cultural context of e.g.: religion, philosophy,politics, economics, social hierarchy etc, or a context of action, the discursiveand physical activities of surrounding the observed phenomena.

Effect (in a Technical System)“-the word “effort” usually implies force. We intended a wider interpretationthat can include many kinds of “effort” as the acting output that a technicalsystem delivers to the Operand of a process. These effects can contain orconsist of material, energy and/or information.” (Hubka & Eder 1988)


Interaction1. mutual or reciprocal action or influence(“interaction” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=interaction [Accessed May 20, 1999])In the context of man machine interaction in this thesis I define the term as astrife between the users goals and interpretations on one hand and theperception of effects in the man machine system on the other.

Interaction GestaltGestalt: a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, orpsychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit withproperties not derivable by summation of its parts. (“gestalt” EncyclopædiaBritannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=gestalt [Accessed May 20,1999])

In this thesis I build on Svanes (1998) who applies the term interaction gestaltto “tactile-kinesthetic sense experiences”. He again, builds on Johnson(1987) who proposes “kinesthetic image schemata” as a term to describeexperiencial wholes resulting from interaction with our physical environment.Johnson claims that these schemata have a lot in common with visual imageschemata, and that they have a very fundamental role in cognition andunderstanding.

Interface1: A surface forming a common boundary of two bodies, spaces, or phases<an oil-water interface>2: The place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and acton or communicate with each other <the man-machine interface>3: The means by which interaction or communication is achieved at aninterface(“interface” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=interface [Accessed May 20, 1999])

In this thesis interface is understood in the second and third meaning. Also, Iam using term interface as a short form of user interface or man machineinterface unless specifically stated otherwise.

KinestheticAdjective of “kinesthesia” denoting:1: A sense mediated by end organs located in muscles, tendons, and jointsand stimulated by bodily movements and tensions2: also : sensory experience derived from this sense(“kinesthesia” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=kinesthetic[Accessed May 20, 1999])

In this thesis the term is used in the second meaning, as the sensoryexperience derived from the senses that are stimulated by bodily movementsand tensions. It constitutes the basis for kinesthetic thinking. (See interactiongestalt)


Life-world1: In Phenomenology, the world as immediately or directly experienced inthe subjectivity of everyday life, as sharply distinguished from the objective"worlds" of the sciences, which employ the methods of the mathematicalsciences of nature("life-world" Encyclopædia Britannica Online<http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=49348&sctn=1> [Accessed May 20, 1999])

I am using Habermas term, not Husserl’s. Habermas allows rationalization inthe life-world but the whole life-world can not be objectified. He reformulateslife-world in communication theoretical terms as the “culturally transmittedand linguistically organized stock of interpretive patterns” (Habermas 1984p.XXVI) in addition to culture he also includes institutional orders andpersonality structures in an ongoing communicative action that contributes torenewing the life-world.

MachineI am using the term machine in its widest sense, to denote any man madeartifact that creates physical effects. The connotations resulting from choosingthe term machine are intentional, to guide thought in the direction of artifactssuch as a bowl or a violin. Although working partly on graphic userinterfaces, I am mainly concerned with complex mechatronic machines.

Machine System"The machines processes can be considered as a system, in which the systemelements are processes, the relations between them are the operands, and theway in which the system is bounded is determined by the first and lastappropriate process. " (Andreassen, 1995)

MechatronicsA trans disciplinary field of engineering that combines mechanics, electronicsand software knowledge in product design.

Phenomenon1. An observable fact or event2. An object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought orintuition3. A temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience asdistinguished from a noumenon4. A fact or event of scientific interest susceptible of scientific descriptionand explanation5. A rare or significant fact or event6. An exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence("phenomenon" Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=phenomenon[Accessed May 20, 1999])

I use the term phenomenon or singular side form phenomena to signifycharacteristics of interactions, as in interaction phenomena


PerspectiveThe term “perspective” is used throughout this thesis to denote a theoreticalpoint of view for some specific field of study. A perspective is based onunderlying scientific ideas and philosophy.

ProductI am using the term in the meaning of something that is produced. A totalproduct can be seen as subdivided into three levels.At the lowest level is the core product in the form of some core benefit orpurpose.At the second level the tangible product (packaging, brand name, features,quality, style etc.)At the third level is the augmented product (installation delivery and credit,warranty, after sales service, etc.) (Kotler 1980)The focus of this thesis is on products at the first two levels.

PropertySee qualityI use the term properties to signify the characteristics of physical objects andeffects, as in product properties.

Quality1. Peculiar and essential character : nature <her ethereal quality -- GayTalese>2. An inherent feature : property <had a quality of stridence, dissonance --Roald Dahl>3. Capacity, role <in the quality of reader and companion -- JosephConrad>3. Degree of excellence : grade <the quality of competing air service --Current Biography>4. Superiority in kind <merchandise of quality>5. Social status : rank, aristocracy6. A distinguishing attribute : characteristic <possesses many fine qualities>7. Archaic : an acquired skill : accomplishment8. The character in a logical proposition of being affirmative or negative9. Vividness of hue, timbre10. The identifying character of a vowel sound determined chiefly by theresonance of the vocal chambers in uttering it11. The attribute of an elementary sensation that makes it fundamentallyunlike any other sensation

Synonyms: quality, property, character, attribute mean an intelligible featureby which a thing may be identified.

Quality is a general term applicable to any trait or characteristic whetherindividual or generic <material with a silky quality>.

Property implies a characteristic that belongs to a thing's essential nature andmay be used to describe a type or species <the property of not conductingheat>.


Character applies to a peculiar and distinctive quality of a thing or a class<remarks of an unseemly character>.

Attribute implies a quality ascribed to a thing or a being <the traditionalattributes of a military hero>.(“quality” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=quality [Accessed May 20, 1999])

An operational definition of quality in product design is given by Mørup(1993 p 91): “Quality is the customers experience (or perception) of how wellthe totality of quality properties of a product satisfies his stated or impliedneeds”. Mørup emphasizes that quality is a subjective experience that canonly be observed through interaction. (Mørup 1993 p99)

Quality property (Qp)Those properties of a technical system that influence the users qualitativejudgement of the system (see Mørup 1993 p115)

Style1. Designation, title2. A distinctive manner of expression (as in writing or speech) <writes withmore attention to style than to content> <the flowery style of 18th centuryprose>3. A distinctive manner or custom of behaving or conducting oneself <theformal style of the court> <his style is abrasive>; also : a particular mode ofliving <in high style>4. A particular manner or technique by which something is done, created, orperformed <a unique style of horseback riding> <the classical style of dance>5. StylusGnomon6. A filiform prolongation of a plant ovary bearing a stigma at its apex7. A slender elongated process (as a bristle) on an animal8. A distinctive quality, form, or type of something <a new dress style> <theGreek style of architecture>9. The state of being popular : fashion <clothes that are always in style>10. Fashionable elegance11. Beauty, grace, or ease of manner or technique <an awkward moment shehandled with style>12. A convention with respect to spelling, punctuation, capitalization, andtypographic arrangement and display followed in writing or printing(“style” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=style[Accessed May 20, 1999])

From the phenomenological perspective developed by Ylimaula (1992), Ichoose to define style as the fundamental nature of knowing, the soundthinking underlying our interpretation of perception. This means that style isonly accessible through exemplars. Therefore an operational definition is thatstyle is the mode of presentation of an artwork or designed object, and maybe described by the characteristics of the mode of presentation.


UsabilityISO 9241-11:1998(E) “Extent to which a product can be used by specifiedusers to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfactionin a specified context of use.”

An operational definition which has won recognition is from Shackel (1991);“Usability can be specified and measured via the operationalcriteria....Effectiveness, Learnability, Flexibility, Attitude”.

A key point is that usability is defined in relation to specified usersperforming specified tasks

User1. One that uses2. End user - the ultimate consumer of a finished product

Use1a. The act or practice of employing something : employment, application<he made good use of his spare time> b: The fact or state of being used <adish in daily use> c: A method or manner of employing or applyingsomething <gained practice in the use of the camera>2a. (1): Habitual or customary usage (2): An individual habit or groupcustom b: a liturgical form or observance; especially a liturgy havingmodifications peculiar to a local church or religious order3a. The privilege or benefit of using something <gave him the use of hercar> b: The ability or power to use something (as a limb or faculty) c: Thelegal enjoyment of property that consists in its employment, occupation,exercise, or practice <she had the use of the estate for life>4a. A particular service or end <put learning to practical use> b: The qualityof being suitable for employment <saving things that might be of use> c: Theoccasion or need to employ <took only what they had use for>5a. The benefit in law of one or more persons; specifically the benefit orprofit of property established in one other than the legal possessor b: A legalarrangement by which such benefits and profits are so established6. A favorable attitude: liking <had no use for modern art>(“use” Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=use[Accessed May 20, 1999])

A connotation in the context of this thesis is that the person who is using hasaccepted his or her role as a participant in a purpose-built system. The termreduces a person to an actor, not necessarily more important than the systemhe is using. The user has no future and no past beyond the situation of use,the need to use, and its fulfillment. A user is not central, it is the process andsystem that is the focus of attention. Although I use it, I approach the termuser with skepticism. It lures us into a limited understanding of the real peopletaking part in a multitude of interconnected real interactions.

Appendix C – List of information sources

APPENDIX C: LIST OF INFORMATION SOURCES 297

Appendix C – List of information sources

Conferences, seminars, invited lectures etc.• Participant at conference Interact 95 - Human Computer Interaction in

Lillehammer, Norway

• Invited lecture on “Man Machine Interaction in Product Design” at theconference Studiemøtet Elektronikk og Data – 96 in Lillehammer,Norway

• Invited lecture on “The Development of New Value Perspectives inErgonomics and HCI, and Current Practice in Human Centered InterfaceDesign” for Dr.ing course 62903 Engineering Design Methodology, leadby Mogens Myrup Andreassen, at NTNU in 1995 and 1996

• Invited lecture on “Man Machine Interaction in Product Design” at aSeminar on Man Machine Interaction. Dept. of Psychology, NTNU 1997

• Presentation of Danfoss Museum Workshop and Smart Window project ata Danish National Center for IT Research (CIT ) seminar 1997 inMiddelfart, Denmark

• Participant at a workshop on Contextuality in Interaction Design with PaulDourish from Xerox PARC at Aarhus University, Department ofInformatics, 1997

• Participant at Danfoss Summer school: Video as Design Material,Norborg, Denmark 1999

• Paper accepted for oral presentation at ICED 99, in Munich, Germanyaugust 1999 (Appendix A – Paper for ICED 99)

Research project participation• SINTEF “Mekatronikk Metodikk” 1994-1996: contributor of Man

Machine Interaction design and test methodology in a transdiciplinarymechatronics methodology project. (see publications)

• NTNU/SINTEF “Produktivitet 2005”: Preliminary project in IntegratedProduct development: Member of a trans disciplinary working group onUser Centered Design. The group proposed needs and opportunities forapplied research in Norway(http://www4.protek.unit.no/p2005/Rapporter/Rapporter.asp?Action=1&Satseomraade_ID=1) (accessed July 1999)


Practice in interaction design and usability testing• Danfoss a.s: Concept development of three alternative interfaces for ECL

2000 digital weather compensator. (temperature regulator for buildings)in 1994

• Tomra a.s: Usability testing of a “Wizard of Oz” mockup in 1995 andthe T14 prototype in 1996

• VingCard a.s: Usability test of 3 magnetic lock prototypes for hotels etc.in 1996

• Danfoss a.s: Museum workshop and Smart Window workshop to generateideas for a Portable Digital Assistant for process plant operators in 1997

Tutoring of higher level student projects• Eighth term project by Henrik Hem-Orskaug: “Methodology for Man

Machine Interaction in Mechatronic Products” for the SINTEFMekatronikk Metodikk project 1994

• Masters thesis by Henrik Hem-Orskaug: “Design of a User Interface forFarming Machinery” – A generic control panel for potato harvesters andgrass bailing machines for Kværneland Underhaug a.s. 1995

• Eighth term project by Tore Kvande Pedersen: Interface design for aportable field terminal for Siemens a.s. Defence Electronics 1997

• Eighth term project by André Ingolfsen: Ceiling mounting rack for aphysiotherapy device for Ertech a.s. and Nordisk Terapi a.s. 1997

• Eighth term project by Lars Hurlen: “Man Machine Interaction forPotato Harvesters” – Development of a multifunction joystick and touchscreen based interface for Kværneland Underhaug a.s. 1998

• Masters thesis by Birgit Pedersen: “Exploration of Style Factors inInteraction Design” Theoretical thesis on the nature of interaction stylebased on empirical studies of radios and a 5. semester student assignmentto conceptualize DAB radios. 1997

• Masters thesis by Lars Hurlen: “User study of the computer screens in anintranet based project information system” – Empathic interaction designof a web application for Intervett a.s. 1998

• Masters thesis by Elizabeth Strand “Product Design of the User Interfaceof Video Conferencing Equipment” for Tandberg a.s. 1998

• Masters thesis by Anne-Lise Hauge-Nilsen: “Ergonomic Methodology forEvaluation of Control rooms in Offshore” for Human Factors Solutionsans. 1999

APPENDIX C: LIST OF INFORMATION SOURCES 299

Visits to relevant design and research groups• Danish Technical University, Dept. of Engineering Design, Copenhagen• Danfoss a.s. User Centered Design Group, Norborg, Denmark• Bang & Olufsen - R&D - Usability lab, Struer, Denmark• Komunedata a.s. - Center for User Quality, Copenhagen, Denmark• SINTEF Rehab - Laboratory for User Quality Oslo, Norway• University of Aarhus - Dept. of Informatics, Denmark• NTNU – Department of Informatics

Publications completed during this research• Øritsland, Trond Are: “Veiledning for forsøksleder ved usability testing”

NTNU 1995: Checklist/workbook for usability tests at the Dept. ofProduct Design Engineering.

• Øritsland, Trond Are: “MMS - en intoduksjon” Institutt forProduktdesign, NTNU, 1996: Compendium and course material for 5.semester Man Machine Interaction course (Mennesker Maskiner 68142)at the Dept. of Product Design Engineering,

• Hildre, Hans Petter, ed. “Mekatronikk Metodikk” report, NTNU/SINTEFTrondhiem 1996: I contributed methodology on man machineinteraction.

• Vavik, Tom & Øritsland, Trond Are: “Mennesklige faktorer i Design - eninnføring i Ergonomi”, ISBN 82-91917-00-0, IPD, NTNU, Trondheim1999: This introductory textbook was developed from a study ofintroductory literature to Ergonomics with the goal of selecting translatingand adapting material for Norwegian design students. We chose to focuson three aspects that we called the three B´s - the User (Bruker), The Use(Bruksmåte) and the Context (Brukssituasjon) Test methdology andPhysiology where reduced to a minimum compared to traditionalintroductory texts for ergonomists.

• Øritsland Trond Are: “Harnessing the Expressive Power of Interaction”:Paper for ICED99, München 1999.

Appendix D – Description of the usability laboratory atthe Department of Product Design Engineering

APPENDIX D: DESCRIPTION OF IPD’S USABILITY LABORATORY 303

Appendix D – Description of the usability laboratory atthe Department of Product Design EngineeringThe usability lab was established shortly after the department was started inthe winter of 1994/95 with a special grant of 300.000 N.kr. from theNorwegian Research Council. In the beginning the department was movingbetween temporary buildings, so the early development of the lab focused oncollecting the proper equipment and developing skills at usability testing.When the department moved into its permanent building in late 1996 tworooms were specifically designed for the lab based on the experiences gainedin pilot testing, visits to other labs in Norway and Denmark, and on theliterature (Benel & Pain 1985), (Nielsen 1993), (Nielsen ed. 1994) and (Rubin1994).

Choice of equipment and layout of the lab was based on decisions about thenature of the usability testing we would be doing. An important strategicdecision was to see usability testing as an active part of a design process, not asa verification or quality control tool. I decided that from a promotional aswell as a pedagogical perspective, usability testing should increase the productdevelopers or students understanding of the user, not only of the productsusability problems. They should develop respect for the users way ofunderstanding and working. This means that we wanted to conduct tests inwhich the student or product developer was immersed in the test situation asan active participant rather than being presented with quantitative, pre-analyzed results. The major requirements of the lab were therefore that itshould:• Provide reliable and efficient data capture. Video and scan-converter

images of the computer screen were a must because they capture moreinformation that simply observing and taking notes, making a voice log ortaking still pictures.

• Be flexible, for testing a wide variety of products, not just computerapplications.

• Be portable, for usability testing in the field at the users own workplace.• Not require expensive or complex equipment that excludes students and

designers from doing their own usability testing.• Create an environment that is comfortable and informal, to counteract

stress for the users/test participants.• Create an environment that is efficient when processing a large number of

users through the test.• Provide possibilities for reviewing the video log without tying up the lab• Provide physical evidence of the departments strategy of developing man

machine interaction competency. (Something to show visitors)

Although traditionally, psychological laboratories rely heavily on the one-waymirror for unobtrusive observation, it was decided that this was unnecessary inour case because extensive use of cameras would cover the whole work area.Also, the one-way mirror is more valuable to the observer than the logger andthe technician because the later are concerned with watching what ishappening on the screen to make a good video log. In our case the productdevelopers or students will also be actively engaged in testing so they will havetheir attention on the video log, or they will be sitting beside the user as a testfacilitator.


The test room is rigged with a U shaped profile hanging 15 centimeters underthe lowered ceiling along three walls. A traverse frame can slide along thewhole length of the room so that cameras can cover every conceivable angle.Still, being above eye level, they are unobtrusive. In addition we can mountcameras on a tripod and on a small table stand if lower angles are required.Cables can be hidden over the loose boards of the ceiling or routed inside theU profiles of the camera track, through a hole in the wall and into theobservation room.

Figure 1: The Usability Laboratory at the Dept. of Product Design Engineering, NTNU

In a typical lab test, when the user arrives in the building he or she will begreeted in a lounge in the reception, This area acts as a buffer in case a priortest is running behind schedule. From there the user will be guided down ahall to a small meeting room if further briefing, group discussions, trainingetc. is necessary. Otherwise he or she will go directly to the usability labthrough a door and down a short hallway. Blinds in windows facing the hallcan be used to regulate the degree of privacy. The rooms are situated insidethe building without exterior windows so that stable light conditions areachieved for the video cameras. The room has daylight-balanced fluorescentlighting plus spotlights that may be clamped to the camera tracks in theceiling. The walls are matt-white, the while the table to and floor are 40%gray. We use the table to color calibrate the cameras if necessary. To avoid


reflections, the furniture has no chrome or other reflective surfaces. A plantand a picture on the wall are positioned in the areas that are normally notcovered by cameras. There is a wall clock above and slightly behind the usershead so the test facilitator can keep an eye on the time schedule without theuser noticing it. To avoid noise there is extra insulation in the walls to the testroom. The lab is situated in a hallway which contains the offices of the MMIgroup, so the other inhabitants are aware of the need to keep things quiet inthe hall.After the test, users are guided from the observation room to the smallmeeting room for debriefing. Sometimes the video tapes are reviewed duringa retrospective interview using a VCR with jog/shuttle controls and an LCDprojector. We use hand written indexes of the tapes. The indexes note the timecode, the task and what is happening. In some tests code letters are used forkeeping track of repetitive events. I have chosen not to use computerizedindexing for simplicity, and in order to tone down the quantitative aspect ofthe tests.

The video equipment consists of a field observation and interview camerafrom Sharp™ which is also used in an all-round/backup capacity. It has alarge LCD monitor which is less obtrusive in interview situations because it isunnecessary to look into a viewfinder and “point to shoot” the camera.

A conventional Sony™ Hi8 camcorder is mounted on a pan/tilt motor withremote zoom and auto focus which can be remote controlled by cable from asmall screen in the observation room. This camera is positioned where there ismost trouble if the user changes position during the test so that we can steerthe camera to keep the person in sight and video tape close ups. The lastcamera is a Sony™ video conference/computer camera with automatictracking and infra red remote control which is normally mounted as anoverhead camera. It is adjusted to look down at tables, manuals, keyboard,mouse etc.

To avoid synchronizing problems, screen reflections or the user obscuring thescreen, all video protocols of the screen are made via a scan-converter. Wehave two scan-converters for cases where multiple screens are used. The scan-converter reduces the resolution and display rate of the computer screengraphics and delivers it as a Y/C or composite video signal to the mixer.

To capture sound a ball character microphone is positioned beside the user, orthe user is wired with a small bug-microphone. As a backup one of thecameras is usually wired for sound as well. In the field we use a canoncharacter microphone with a wind dampening foam cover.

All the signals from the test room are taken through the wall to the mixer inthe observation room. For field work a bundle of 15-meter long cableprovides flexibility to rig the equipment in difficult settings.

The mixer has three inputs and allows two channels to be shown on the screenat once. We can choose between picture-in-picture or split screen layouts.Many usability labs use four channel mixers but I found that the lowresolution of S-VHS tapes means that four quarter size pictures are difficult toread. Therefore, being able to monitor three video sources and choosing thebest view for one or two pictures on the tape is sufficient.


Figure 2: A glimpse into the test room on the right and the observation room on the left.

The video signal from the mixer is taped on one of two VCR’s. the secondcan be configured as a backup so no time is lost in changing tapes.Alternatively the VCR’s may be rigged for simple push-button editing of thetapes. Since the lab is primarily for educational and research work I have notyet been able to justify the cost of digital editing, however this situation isconstantly changing as the cost/functionality ratio of non-linear digital videoproduction grows better.

The reviewing and analysis of video tapes is by far the most time consumingphase of the test. To increase capacity at this work we a third VCR andprojector that may be used independently.


Table 1: The usability lab’s video equipment

Equipment T y p eVideo monitor 28´´ Panasonic FT-2900Speakers Jamo 2 way 20 watt driven by the video

monitor2 Video monitors 14´´ Sony KX 1410 w. internal speakersScan Converter pc/mac Vine micros Deltascan Pro

PAL 1600/1200 resolutionand Mediator PAL 800/640 resolution

2 VTR’s Panasonic AG-57001 VTR JVCVideo mixer Panasonic WJ-MX30 2 channels

three inputs of picture/soundCeiling camera Sony EVI D30/31Remote controlled camera Sony CCD TR3100ETransport cases Toolcase for field camera

Box for 2 monitors 2 VCRs and mixer withroom for cables tripod etc.

Pan/Tilt motor and remote control w.2”monitor

Sony HV R 500

Tri-pod Schactler Video 14 long w. 1/2 ball attachmentField observation camera Sharp VL-H400SMicrophone 1 – round character Sony ECM 23FMicrophone 2 – canon character Sony C74Mic. table stand Sony A 25Mulitmedia Computer (bought 1994) PowerMac 8100 CD AV 80Mhz processor, 120

Mb RAM, 2Gb HD, Video in/out 2MB VRAMScreen 1 – Touchscreen Apple Multi scan 20” with ELO Touchscreen

19/20''Screen 2 Apple 15”Multi media applications Macromind Director 6.5

Authorware 3.0HyperCard 2.2Sound Edit 16Avid video shop 3.0Apple Plain Talk 1,5 – speech recognition andsynthesis

Ergonomics applications Mannequin pro 7.0People SizeFractal design Poser 3

Graphic & 3D applications Adobe Illustrator 5,5Photoshop 4.0Pagemaker 6.5X-rez 3Extreme 3D - 2

And… MS Office and web applications


ReferencesBenel, D.C.R., and Pain, R.F. ”The Human Factors Usability Laboratory in ProductEvaluation”, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting, pp. 950-952, Human Factors Society, Santa Monica - CA, 1985

Nielsen, Jacob: Usability Engineering, Academic Press, San Diego 1993

Nielsen, Jacob, ed.: “Special Issue: Usability Laboratories” in Behavior andInformation technology, Vol. 13. Nr. 1 & 2, ISSN 0144-929x, Taylor &Francis, UK 1994

Rubin, Jeffery: “Handbook of Usability Testing”, ISBN 0-471-59403-2,Wiley, USA, 1994

a theory of discursive interaction designfolk.ntnu.no/tao/oritsland_thesis.pdf · 5.1 why build a...

Documents