Here’s A Wrap-Up of the Course So Far

The class can be summed up in 7 parts (of which, I arrived during step 5):

1: Experience design is so hot right now (catch the Zoolander reference?)
2: As designers, we need to know about experience and what it can tell us
3: Anthropology and others have already given us a good theory set on what experience actually is, and we don’t need to reinvent the wheel
4: It is not necessarily easy for us to get at everything philsophers and anthropologists work on (so sometimes dissecting their work is tough)
5: We can get at experience through our practice
If we do this critically, we can get at experience through the use of both studies and with critical thinking. This is sort of how we approached the analysis of the films we saw in the beginning of the semeseter. If we do this systematically, we can get at the relationships our knowledge we help to give us, and then we can become close to the actual experience and begin to design with these insights in mind. We can also use the frameworks given in class to help us get at this data and develop this closeness.
6: When we get at what the nuanced experience actually is, we can then design for it (like mentioned in 5)
This is the critical eye we are trying to develop, and to develop that understanding. It is not just theories (although they help), but it is the capacity to use these as an analytical tool to get at the critical understanding we need to develop for when we work in the field, or in our work as a distinguished HCI practicitioner. This can be summed up by the following quote referenced in class: totally, tenderly, and tragically. If we can take this to heart, we can develop true empathy with the people we are designing for and also to create better designs for them.
7: The need to design for experience, and not just making of stuff (because stuff is just stuff, and we don’t need more stuff).

So then we decided to look at the different types of thinking in the history of our discipline, while reflecting on Bodker’s waves of HCI.

Another Look at Rationalism/Cartesian Dualism

This type of thinking relies upon the principle of mind-body dualism, where we get an idea, we form an intention, our mind creates instructions, and our body is just a vessel to carry out this intention. This type of thinking is typical of traditional science, as it tries to be as objective as possible. This is nicely summarized on the quote on pp24, in which we learn about this type of thinking and its discursive practices. This type of thinking is embedded in our methods, as they are abstracted and algorithmic. This allows the data generated to be as objective as possible.

But there are problems with this type of thinking, at least with focusing on the experience people have. This type of thinking transforms the computer into an idealized input/output machine, in which the person is just a thing to make this machine work. This is also present in the Michael Garrett’s IA framework/representation. This creates a mental model of a website that anyone can understand – but unfortunately, this reflects the rationalist way of thinking, in which a person is just a mental model holder. There is also no consideration to the context in which something happens to this person. This was sort of solved by Winograd and Flores’ paper/book about that rationalism is not enough for proper HCI thinking.

Phenomenology (With a Song Cue)

This study helps us to understand understanding and sensemaking. We look at artifacts as transformative of tradition, but still allowing people to do what it is they still want to do. This then helps to drive new needs from people, while still partaking in the activities and traditions they want to continue. As we design, we will have to adapt to this continually changing traditions – it’s a never-ending cycle, which means we may get to keep designing and having jobs for a while at least. As we are designing, with this mindset, we can also tap into sustainability, as we can put this thinking into very simple practices to allow people to keep doing what they want to do, but still be practice whatever they are doing in a sustainable manner (and we should look into the work of Anne-Marie Willis and Ontological Design as well). This, esentially, is trying to get at the geneologically, and try to examine how we have gotten to where we have gotten, and then we can get a better idea about the traditions and practices we have ended up creating. This practice also wants to look at the collectivity of lifeworlds, as this is what we need to tap into to make better designs and utilize the way people go about their buisness.

Talking About Ethnography

If one really wants to delve into this world, one should really take a look into the work of Geertz – but that’s an FYI tidbit. From today’s reading, we learned that this study boils down to an interpretive description of what occurred. There is also an especially insightful quote on pp34, reflecting on the type of discourse this field is. We also ended up talking about this study as observing the changes in oneself while observing another culture, and one is in the thick of interpretations (which are inevitable). This is a fundamentally subjective way of studying other cultures, in which the ethnographer produces a substantial descriptive text, which enables the reader to try to get into the lifeworlds of the culture that is studied. This is quite a complex field, and one has to remember one may end up changing forever the culture he/she wants to study.

Political Thinking and Design

So has design been management centered (pp37)? Though we would like to design for the user, sometimes design ends up making an artifact that takes the user out of play. For example, the McDonald’s (sometimes broken) register. It has been reduced to just pressing numbers and buttons to make many more sales, rather than having an employee learn and become satisfied using the artifact. This design also reflects the difference in powers there are in the normal work structure – the manager has power over the employee, who’s job is to listen to the manager. The designed artifact, the register, allows the manager to use the employee’s time as much as possible to push the most amount of hamburgers out the door. As we are designing, we may have to keep this power, ethical, and judicial struggle in mind – especially if we work for the government, or McDonalds. As a side note – it’s always good to treat the employees well, as we found out that Costco employees steal less than those from Sam’s Club. How bout them apples?