Summer School 2006
After Ivrea, Roma, Split and Timisoara the 5th Convivio Summer School came to Edinburgh, August 14th-25th.
The theme this year was: "Technology, Enjoying or Enduring it? Visions, Boundaries and Transformations in Extending or Replacing Human Capacities."
Read more...
- Categories
-
archive
Archive for the 'Interaction Design' Category
11-12-2006 by
The complexity of simplicity.
In “The Complexity of Simplicity” Luke Wroblewski looks at how simplicity, often hailed as the holy grail of interface design, is quite hard to get right (if at all):
“Many of us carry a few preconceived notions about simplicity. We assume things that are easy to use don’t have a lot of options and, as a result, shouldn’t appear cluttered when we first encounter them.
Conversely, a perception of complexity can turn customers, clients, or business stakeholders off before they ever actually use a product.
Cultural context can also sway people’s perceptions of simplicity.
Regardless of the specific biases of individuals, notions of perceived complexity can prevent potential users from discovering the simplicity of a product’s actual use.
While there are many reasons why keeping things simple is difficult, I’ve encountered the following three causes quite frequently:
1.
Perceived simplicity can often conflict with actual simplicity of usage.
2.
Actions that provide real value, and drive revenue, often have formidable learning curves.
3.
Gradual engagement, the most frequently cited solution for managing complexity, is actually quite difficult to design and build.”
Posted in Interaction Design, User Experience, Human Centered Design, User Interface Design | No Comments »
27-11-2006 by
Open day at the RCA.
The Royal College of Art’s Design Interactions department is having an open day on December 4th 2006:
“The Design Interactions department at the Royal College of Art explores new roles, contexts and approaches for design in relation to the social, cultural and ethical impact of existing and emerging technologies.
Projects, which are often speculative and critical, aim to inspire debate about the human consequences of different technological futures, both positive and negative.
Students work closely with people outside the College, designing for the complex, troubled people we are, rather than the easily satisfied consumers and users we are supposed to be.
Project outcomes are expressed through a variety of media including prototypes, simulations, video and photography. Students have backgrounds in art and design, computer science, engineering and psychology.
Visitors can meet and talk with students in the studio between 2.00 PM and 6.00 PM.
Professor Anthony Dunne, Head of Department, will give presentations about the course at 2.00 PM and 4.00 PM.“
Posted in Interaction Design | No Comments »
20-11-2006 by
Natural Interaction.
Natural Interaction is an iO research center that investigates novel approaches to interactions with digital artifacts:
“Natural Interaction investigates the relationships between humans and machines following this vision: we create interactive artifacts that respect and exploit the natural dynamics through which people communicate and discover the real world.
Our research is aimed at creating technology-enhanced spaces that sense and understand human behaviors and expressions, and present digital content as it was real, physical stuff.
Our interaction design work is based on intuitive schemes, that need no explanations, so that common people in public spaces may spontaneously dialogue with the artifact.
Differently from traditional research facilities, Natural Interaction experiments and proposes a vertical, vision-driven, lightweight research model, that directly impacts the real world.
We think the world needs to interact with machines in a simple, human way. And we also think that small is beautiful.
The Center adopts a craft approach, like in a Renaissance ‘bottega’, where researchers address all the issues that affect the interaction experience.
We create experiences through an original conjunction of art and science.”
Their white paper “Designing Natural Interaction” ( 116 KB, PDF) is a nice introduction to their design philosophy.
(via Bruno Giussani)
Posted in Interaction Design, User Experience, Ubiquitous Computing | No Comments »
09-11-2006 by
User Experience Research.
Andreas Pfeiffer’s “User Experience Research” introduces the concept of User Interface Friction, another measure to gauge the quality of the User Experience:
“How do we compare technology?
In our innovation-driven society, we tend to compare technology almost exclusively by looking at features and performance.
This functionality-centric approach is utterly natural … (but) as technology matures, features are not that important any more.
So if we don’t look at features any more, what DO we look when we try to decide on the comparative merits of two products?
Design? Style? Both are difficult to measure, and don’t do much on their own.
Of course there is always “user experience”, an increasingly important aspect in the success of technology-related products, but an equally elusive one.
These considerations led us to come up with a new concept, that has proven extremely useful in conducting technology analysis.
Since in nature it is somewhat similar to the physical notion of friction, we called it User Interface Friction (UIF).
UIF is the resistance imposed upon a user-guided process through the operating system and the way the user interface reacts.
In most cases, it has nothing to do with functionality: we use the term User Interface Friction to define the difference in fluidity and productivity that can be observed when running the same program or procedure on different computer systems, or when trying to achieve the goal on two similar digital devices.”
(via InfoDesign)
Posted in Interaction Design, User Experience, User Interface Design | No Comments »
04-11-2006 by
IDEA 2006. Presentations.
IDEA 2006 (previously mentioned on Convivio) has taken place a few days ago, and judging from various comments the conference was successful and filled with interesting contributions.
Most presentations (many with videos and MP3s) can be found here.
Apparently (and unsurprisingly) Bruce Sterling’s keynote was the highlight of the conference.
You can download the audio here (12 MB, MP3).
Posted in Interaction Design, Conferences | No Comments »
27-10-2006 by
People, not products.
In “Interfaces for People, Not Products” Jonathan Follett looks at how the ever-accruing availability of digital information has blurred the boundaries between expert users and specialists, and how this has in turn further increased complexity for those designing the systems that let users access that interrelated information:
“The digitizing of information, the rapid rise of digital information systems, and increased access to those systems by a broad range of people have challenged the way in which we look at specialists and the roles they play. In many industries, specialists are no longer information gatekeepers, but rather system negotiators.
For example, in the travel industry, agents provide value not by finding the best deals, which you can do yourself online, but by ensuring your trip goes smoothly.
Yet this access to information is a double-edged sword.
We are increasingly responsible for managing everything from our bank accounts to our credit, our insurance plans to our retirement plans, our health care to our education.
This responsibility is time-consuming, while we are no longer amateurs, we’re not really experts either.
Herein lies a great challenge for information designers, who must format data to aid understanding, decision-making, and efficient task completion.
We can no longer consider the tasks of information design and user interface design independent of the broader context.
Information design should take into account the interdependence of systems.
Each of our projects affects others, in small and large ways.
When solving design problems, information designers should examine how their contributions fit into the particular industry in which they’re working, because the consequences of their design decisions may ripple across numerous systems.“
Posted in Interaction Design, Human Centered Design | No Comments »
26-10-2006 by
Accessibility for blind people.
PingMag’s “Accessibility for blind people” is a very nice interview with a sight-impaired programmer dealing with the difficulties of interacting with on and offline technologies:
“For most of us, using a computer and surfing the web is an almost entirely visual experience. We move cursors around the screen, click buttons and menus, read text and look at pictures.
But although most of us rely on monitors to use computers, blind and visually impaired users haven’t been left out. “
Posted in Interaction Design, Usability | No Comments »
06-10-2006 by
Designing Interactions.
The MIT Press just released “Designing Interactions“, a new book+DVD by Bill Moggridge, one of IDEO’s founders.
The book is structured around 40 interviews with leading thinkers and practitioners who have been shaping the field, including Convivio’s own Gillian Crampton Smith.
“Digital Technology has changed the way we interact with everything from the games we play to the tools we use at work.
Designers of digital technology products no longer regard their job as designing a physical object, beautiful or utilitarian, but as designing our interactions with it.
In Designing Interactions, Bill Moggridge, designer of the first laptop computer (the GRiD Compass, 1981) and a founder of the design firm IDEO, tells us stories from an industry insider’s viewpoint, tracing the evolution of ideas from inspiration to outcome.
Moggridge and his interviewees discuss why a personal computers have windows in desktops, what made Palm’s handheld organizers so successful, what turns a game into a hobby, why Google is the search engine of choice, and why 30 million people in Japan choose the i-mode service for their cell phones.
And Moggridge tells the story of his own design process and explains the focus on people and prototypes that has been successful at IDEO, how the needs and desires of people can inspire innovative designs and how prototyping methods are evolving for the design of digital technology.”
If all of the above is not enough to wet your appetite maybe the words of Don Norman will:
“This will be the book - the book that summarizes how the technology of interaction came into being and prescribes how it will advance in the future.
Essential, exciting, and a delight for both eyes and mind.”
Posted in Interaction Design, Books | 1 Comment »
28-09-2006 by
Ambient Signifiers.
Inspired by the Tokyo Rail system, in “Ambient Signifiers (How I Learned to Stop Getting Lost and Love Tokyo Rail)” Ross Howard talks about the use of subtle signals to help people navigate complex information spaces:
“While traveling the Tokyo rail lines, I quickly realized that apart from the obvious use of real-time electronic signage, colored trains, and audio announcements, there were also other techniques being used to assist travelers in knowing where they were, and where they were going.
These techniques were subtler, and bordered on subliminal.
Simple chime melodies sounded on each platform as the train was waiting for passengers to get on and off … these melodies were different for each station.
After long-term use of the same route, commuters build up a unique chain of melodies that accompany them on their way home.
Without necessarily realizing why, they begin to establish a familiarity with these sounds, and can quickly discover when they have overshot their destination by hearing an unfamiliar melody that indicates a strange place.
I call these cues ‘ambient signifiers’: design elements that communicate subtly as part of the environment’s ambiance.
Current web designs tend to communicate using overt signifiers such as icons and text (and) these small, high-frequency elements require active seeking on the user’s part.
Ambient signifiers, on the other hand, are more constant and low-frequency in nature, working on a more passive and subconscious level without any effort from the user.
Because of their low frequency, they can communicate effectively irrespective of the competing high frequency ’sensory noise’ present in today’s rich and complex web interfaces.
Users don’t have to look anywhere: ambient signifiers are felt everywhere.“
Posted in Interaction Design, Ubiquitous Computing, User Interface Design | No Comments »
26-09-2006 by
Tangible user interfaces: misconceptions and insights.
Nicolas Nova has just posted “Tangible user interfaces: misconceptions and insights.” (PDF, 6.2 MB), an interesting introduction to problems currently being faced by interaction designers in this area.
“Misconception 1: inert objects do not lead to tangible interactions.
Misconception 2:
Direct mapping is simple and intuitive.
Misconception 3:
Physical interfaces offer a larger variety of control than standard controllers, and are more realistic and intuitive.
Misconception 4:
People want ambient information and ambient is just ambient.
Misconception 5:
The starting point of designing TUI is to look at real-life counterparts.
Misconception 6:
Tangible interfaces are ubiquitous and allow mobile/seamless interactions.
Misconception 7:
Tangible interactions = gestural interactions with small devices.
Misconception 8:
Tangible interactions rely on a ‘one shot’ model and objects are stable.
Misconception 9:
Tangible interaction is about interaction and not cognition; interaction is direct.
Misconception 10:
Tangible interaction are a matter of human beings and the environment.“
Posted in Interaction Design, Ubiquitous Computing, User Interface Design | No Comments »
25-09-2006 by
IDEA 2006. Information: Design, Experience, Access.
IDEA 2006, a new conference organized by Adaptive Path’s Peter Merholz, will be held in Seattle, USA, on October 23-24, 2006.
“IDEA 2006 brings together a diverse set of designers, creators, and researchers addressing a fundamental challenge we’re facing today: how to let everyday people take true advantage of the overwhelming mass of information that floods their lives.
Throughout their days, people are engaging with complex information to manage their lives … the appropriate presentation of information helps people make sense of the world around them.
There are currently many different kinds of folks working in this space, but they typically don’t talk with one another.
For this event, we’ve made an effort to invite presenters across a stunning array of disciplines - museum design, information visualization, librarians, environmental design, user research, engineering, interaction design, product strategy, and more.
The conference addresses issues of design for an always-on, always-connected world.
Where “cyberspace” is a meaningless term because the online and offline worlds cannot be made distinct.
Where physical spaces are so complex that detailed wayfinding is necessary to navigate them.
Where work processes have become so involved, and so digitized, that we need new processes to manage those processes.“
Posted in Interaction Design, Conferences | No Comments »
21-09-2006 by
Designing for Illiterate Users
Jan Chipchase’s “Designing for Illiterate Users” (6 MB, PPT), is a wonderful new study recently presented at UIAH in Helsinky:
“Don’t frame the question by ‘designing for illiterate people’, think about the skills that are necessary to use the core features on a device, something which we term device competency.
Consider the different types of literacy that users do have.
To what extent do risks & consequences affect device exploration?
Why iconic support and voice prompts can be part of a solution but are far from being the solution, instead look to a range of solutions on the device, on the network, and in user’s ecosytem. The eco-system can be anything from (task or device) literacy classes to posters on walls.
Last but certainly not least that it is better to solve the problem (illiteracy), than design work-around solutions for dealing with the problem (illiterate users stumped by text driven device interfaces).“
Posted in Interaction Design, User Research, Human Centered Design | No Comments »
17-09-2006 by
The Future of Human-Computer Interaction
In “The Future of Human-Computer Interaction” John Canny talks about a possible revolution around the corner when it comes to the practice of Human-Computer Interaction:
“User-centered design works well, we have good office information systems, HCI is a solid discipline.
So why write an article on the future of HCI, and more to the point, why should you read it?
The beef is that IT is not just about office work any more. It’s going everywhere (yes, you’ve heard that, but this time it really is).
Because of that, we’re due for another revolution (in fact, probably several) in HCI over the next few years.
Smart phones today are about as powerful as a midrange PC from eight years ago. Although only a tiny amount of smart-phone software is around now, it is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the industry.
Unfortunately, if you’ve tried interacting with a nontrivial smart-phone application, you’ll know what an ordeal it can be.
There has been a brave effort to evolve it from its WIMP interface roots, but it just feels wrong - like a shark in a shopping mall.
The story is similar for the other new markets for IT: medical, automotive, etc. In all cases, we’re adapting designs that were beautifully optimized for the office to a completely different environment.
If the past is any lesson, that isn’t going to work.
What will work in these new domains? The race is certainly not over, but there are some very good bets.“
Posted in Interaction Design, Human Centered Design, Ubiquitous Computing | No Comments »
28-07-2006 by
(Power) laws of innovation.
In “Power Laws Of Innovation” John Thackara lists his 10 laws of innovation.
Unsurprisingly many have human beings at the center:
“Power Law 1:
Don’t think “new product” - think social value.
Power Law 2:
Think social value before “tech”.
Power Law 3:
Enable human agency. Design people into situations, not out of them.
Power Law 4:
Use, not own. Possession is old paradigm.
Power Law 5:
Think P2P, not point-to-mass.
Power Law 6:
Don’t think faster, think closer.
Power Law 7:
Don’t start from zero. Re-mix what’s already out there.
Power Law 8:
Connect the big and the small.
Power Law 9:
Think whole systems (and new business models, too).
Power Law 10:
Think open systems, not closed ones.“
Posted in Interaction Design | No Comments »
22-07-2006 by
Changing frameworks in HCD.
In “A New Framework” Adaptive Path’s Todd Wilkens calls for an end to the decades-old framework that has been used for understanding people:
“There is a growing realization that we are no longer designing products, web sites, or monolithic centralized systems.
As the internet and digital networks in general become more ubiquitous, more distributed, and more integrated in our lives, we’re finding that it’s better to think of our projects in terms of services and systems rather than products.
Of course, focusing on services means having to deal with a much messier set of issues related to human behavior than in traditional interactive design.
This is fundamentally changing the way we all go about doing design.
In particular, I’ve been thinking that we may need to move away from a framework of tasks, goals, and states in favor of a framework focused on behaviors, motivations, and contexts.
Essentially, I am calling for an end to the decades-old framework that HCI, information architecture, and interaction design have been using for understanding users.
This is not just a semantic or linguistic game I’m playing.
I’m not just substituting one set of words (i.e., behaviors, motivations, contexts) for another (i.e., tasks, goals, states) while maintaining the underlying structure.
The models we use to understand and talk about people greatly influence how we can understand a problem or situation.
If your framework doesn’t explicitly account for culture and context, then it is unlikely that you will be attuned to these things when you do your research and design.“
Posted in Interaction Design, User Research, Human Centered Design | No Comments »
21-07-2006 by
Taskonomies.
In “Logic Versus Usage: The Case for Activity-Centered Design” Don Norman expands some of his previous considerations around the need for the evolution of Human-Centered Design processes and methods:
“Human behavior seldom follows mathematical logic and reasoning. By the standards of engineers, human behavior can be illogical and irrational.
From the standpoint of people, however, their behavior is quite sensible, dictated by the activity being performed, the environment and context, and their higher-level goals.
To support real behavior we need activity-centered design.
Years ago, anthropologists Janet Dougherty and Charles Keller studied how blacksmiths organize their tools … (which) are organized so that they are ready for the job, ready for use.
In other words, good behavioral organization reflects human activity structure, not dictionary classification.
Dougherty and Keller called this form of organization ‘taskonomy’.
Many of the design tools used by the Human-Centered Design community lead to well-structured, carefully organized designs … (which) are far too logical.
Call this the ‘hardware store’ organization: hammers are in the hammer section where they are all logically arranged, nails are in the nail section.
The hardware store organization is based upon a taxonomy … this organization is well-suited for well-structured retrieval, but ill-suited for the direct support of an activity.
Is activity-centered design overthrowing all that we have learned about human-centered design?
No, definitely not. I consider activity structure to be a refinement of HCD.
Taxonomic structures are appropriate when there is no context, when suddenly needing some new piece of information or tool.
That’s why this structure works well for libraries, stores, websites, and the program menu of an operating system.
But once an activity has begun, then taskonomy is the way to go, where things used together are placed near one another, where any one item might be located logically within the taxonomic structure but also wherever behaviorally appropriate for the activities being supported.
The best solution is to provide both solutions: taxonomies and taskonomies.“
Posted in Interaction Design, Human Centered Design | No Comments »
20-07-2006 by
Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design.
Great news from Heather Martin, together with Neil Churcher one of the last academic directors of Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, and Simona Maschi, one of IDII’s longest-standing associate professors.
With the support of Alie Rose and of a few IDII alumni, Heather and Simona are starting a brand new school in Copenhangen, Denmark, called the Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design.
“The aim is to create a high profile design institute, which is small but dynamic and which interfaces with academia and industry.
The institute will become an international setting for new thinking in design and technology in Copenhagen.
The institute will encourage multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary learning, teaching and consulting in Interaction Design.
We imagine that people both from the academic and the industrial world will come to Copenhagen to work with us on innovative products, services and technology for the future.
The institute aims to become an international centre of excellence in interaction design and innovation by 2010.
The uniqueness of the institute is that it will incorporate an integrated plan of teaching, research and consulting - all in the same building, at the same time allowing them to influence each other in their vision and philosophy.
The institute will award a Master Degree (MA) in Interaction Design or a certificate for completing a Foundation course in Interaction Design.
The Masters courses will focus on tangible/product interactions, graphical/screen interactions and service design interactions.
The Foundation Course is an intense course aimed at teaching fundamental skill-sets specific to Interaction Design (e.g. Design Methods, Product Design, Service Design, Visual design, Physical and Software prototyping etc).
This course is not only aimed at those would like to update their existing skill-set (employees on sabbatical or interaction designers needing to update existing skills), but also enables students from other disciplines to join the course and learn all the skills required to then study an MA in Interaction Design.
The Research Lab will be financially self-sustaining.
It will support the research and consulting program of the Institute.
Activities conducted by the Research Lab include consulting for clients and innovation workshops, done in collaboration with industrial and research partners.
There will be 4 different sizes of projects: SMALL (2 weeks), MEDIUM (4 weeks), LARGE (12 weeks) and XLARGE (24 weeks).
The goal is to give private and public organizations the possibility to collaborate with a young, dynamic, and skilled group of researchers.“
Posted in Interaction Design | No Comments »
22-06-2006 by
Interaction Museum, contest announcement.
Good news from Wendy Mackay, who is leading activities for the Convivio-sponsored Interaction Museum.
The Interaction Museum is a new on-line collection of interaction techniques, methods and systems.
Designed to support professional software developers and researchers, the goal is to preserve historically important and on-going advances in interaction.
Entries provide detailed descriptions, including video and interactive applets, to facilitate search and comparison across techniques.
Exhibits provide edited presentations of selected entries, for professional, educational or research purposes.
The Interaction Museum contest, in conjunction with UIST 2006, is designed to raise awareness of the Interaction Museum, populate the museum with high-quality entries and create the basis for bench-marking interaction techniques.
It’s also fun!
Why a contest?
We are interested in collecting Classic Techniques (scrollbars, marking menus, toolglasses, etc.) and Novel Interaction Techniques for pointing, selection and navigation.
You need not be the author of the technique: think of it as an interactive wikipedia entry.
Who should participate?
Anyone who can program an interaction technique using the Java Swing toolkit (preferably with our SwingStates extension).
You may use other tools, such as Flash, but if you do you will not be able to enter the benchmark part of the contest. However, you will still be eligible for the ‘best entry’ prizes.
How can you create an entry?
Entries include an abstract (image, description & keywords), a short storyboard, video and/or software applets that let Interaction Museum users test the technique, and references.
All entries will be reviewed for clarity and accuracy; the best will appear at UIST 2006.
How will the contest work?
We will use a standard experimental protocol for benchmarking the techniques, using the applets you provide.
We will ask UIST 2006 conference attendees to test the techniques under experimental conditions and will collect both performance and preference data.
A distinguished jury will evaluate the quality of the entries and the efficacy of each techniques.
A “Interaction Museum madness” event will show off the best entries and best techniques, which will win small prizes and be announced in ACM Interactions Magazine.
Lef wondering how can you enter the contest?
Here are some key dates:
July 31st, 2006
Express your interest by sending an email to: interestimuseum@lri.fr.
August 31st, 2006
Submit your entry here.
15 September 15th, 2006
Submit your final applet here for the benchmark.
References:
Wendy Mackay, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon & Caroline Appert
Sponsored by:
Convivio and in|situ| - INRIA Futurs & LRI
Posted in Interaction Design | No Comments »
11-06-2006 by
Power to the people.
In “Words Matter. Talk About People: Not Customers, Not Consumers, Not Users.” Don Norman advocates against depersonalizing those we design for by calling them with terms that overly simplify the complexity of the many roles they play:
“Words matter.
Psychologists depersonalize the people they study by calling them “subjects.”
We depersonalize the people we study by calling them “users.”
Both terms are derogatory.
They take us away from our primary mission: to help people.
Power to the people, I say, to repurpose an old phrase.
People. Human Beings. That’s what our discipline is really about.
If we are designing for people, why not call them that: people, a person, or perhaps humans.
But no, we distance ourselves from the people for whom we design by giving them descriptive and somewhat degrading names, such as customer, consumer, or user.
Customer – you know, someone who pays the bills.
Consumer – one who consumes.
User, or even worse, end user – the person who pushes the buttons, clicks the mouse, and keeps getting confused.
Time to admit that we are people, that we design for people.
Yes, I know, the various terms arose from the need to distinguish the many different roles people play in the world of artifacts, machines, and gizmos: those who specify, those who distribute, those who purchase (customers), those who actually use them (users). Those who stand by and watch.
But that is still no excuse. All of them are people.
All deserve their share of dignity. Their roles can be specified in other ways.
It is time to wipe words such as consumer, customer, and user from our vocabulary.
Time to speak of people. Power to the people.”
Convivio has always put such considerations at the center of its very identity, being in fact a network for “human-centered design of interactive technology”… thus also comes as no surprise that Liam Bannon, who’s remembered by Norman “passionately arguing that the terms we used would control the way we thought“, is part of Convivio’s Executive Committee.
Posted in Interaction Design | No Comments »
24-05-2006 by
Architecture, Hackability, Interaction Design.
In “Architecture and Interaction Design, via Adaptation and Hackability” Dan Hill has gathered his thought-provoking ideas on the role that adaptiveness should play when designing interactive artifacts:
“Essentially, all products lives start when in the hands of the consumer, long after the designer has waved bye bye.
Design is a social process.
This reinforces the idea of adaptation as a basic human desire.
This should really be a question of can products be purposefully made more or less hackable?
If we are to invite the user in, we need to leave some of the seams and traces open for others to explore; some sense of what the process of design, or un-design, might entail.
This is beyond affordances (which concern predefined usage).
This sense that the fabric of the product should communicate its constituent parts and how they are assembled runs counter to ‘invisible computing’ thinking and much user-centred design, which argues that interfaces should get out of the way.
As the distinction between hardware and software blurs, their behaviour approaches the malleability of software.
Arguably the most interesting things about these emerging products and devices is their ability to create or contribute towards a sense of self … there is huge potential to build devices which become increasingly, personally meaningful, which can adapt to personal context and preference like never before.
This requires that the products have at least some ‘understanding’ of both their own behaviour - essentially, tracking their behaviour, usage patterns, and context wherever possible - and are built by both designers/researchers who understand ‘the social’ in depth, and can ultimately be adapted by their own users.
In adaptive design, designers must enable the experience/object to ‘learn’, and users to be able to ‘teach’ the experience/object.
So, it’s a two-way interaction, in which the user wants to adapt the product, to make it useful to him or her.
Designers shouldn’t aim to control, but to enable.“
Posted in Interaction Design, Human Centered Design | No Comments »