The logic of annotated portfolios: communicating the value of 'research through design'

ABSTRACT

This paper examines Research Through Design as an orientation to so-called 'Third Wave' Human Computer Interaction (HCI). A number of recent critical reflections are reviewed and the 'disciplinary anxieties', which this approach to HCI has aroused, are discussed. Drawing on Feyerabend's philosophical scepticism over methods and contributions to the Sociology of Science, it is suggested that design research might build its own 'limited rationality' rather than be brought in line with supposed norms for good research or criteria for rigour and relevance of unfamiliar provenance. To this end, a concept of 'annotated portfolio' is advanced, and detailed, as a means for capturing the family resemblances that exist in a collection of artefacts, simultaneously respecting the particularity of specific designs and engaging with broader concerns. The concept is demonstrated through annotating nine well-known pieces created by the Goldsmiths Interaction Research Studio. Treating this collection as an annotated portfolio highlights, formulates and collates interaction design issues in this work in a novel manner. On this basis, annotated portfolios are proposed as a viable means for communicating design thinking in HCI in a descriptive yet generative and inspirational fashion, without having recourse to standards of 'theory' which fit design practice uncomfortably.

References

1. Alexander C, Ishikawa S (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
2. Bardzell, J. and Bardzell, S. (2011). Pleasure is your birthright: digitally enabled designer sex toys as a case of third-wave HCI. Proc. CHI' 11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 257--266.
3. Barthes, R. (1977) Image, Music, Text. "The Photographic Message." Ed. and trans. S. Heath. New York: Hill. 15--31.
4. Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. Proc. NordiCHI '06. ACM, New York, USA, 1--8.
5. Carroll, J. and Kellogg, W. (1989). Artifact as theory-nexus: hermeneutics meets theory-based design. SIGCHI Bull. 20, SI (March), 7--14.
6. Collins, H. (1985) Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Cooper, G. and Bowers, J., (1995). Representing the user. In Thomas, P. (ed.), The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces. New York: CUP.
8. Fallman, D. and Stolterman, E. (2010). Establishing criteria of rigour and relevance in interaction design research. Digital Creativity, 21 (4), 265--272.
9. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. New York, NY: Verso Books.
10. Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C., Bardzell, J., Koskinen, I. and Wensveen, S. (2011). Quality control: a panel on the critique and criticism of design research. Proc. CHI EA '11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 823--826.
11. Frayling, C. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers 1, 1 (1993), 1--5.
12. Gaver, W. (2012). What Should We Expect From Research Through Design? To appear in Proc. CHI'12. ACM, New York, NY, USA.
13. Gaver, W., (2009). Designing for Homo Ludens, Still. In (Re)searching the Digital Bauhaus. Binder, T., Löwgren, J., and Malmborg, L. (eds.). London: Springer, pp. 163--178.
14. Gaver, W., Beaver, J., and Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proc. CHI'03, Ft. Lauderdale. New York: ACM Press.
15. Gaver, W., Blythe, M., Boucher, A., Jarvis, N., Bowers, J. and Wright, P. (2010). The prayer companion: openness and specificity, materiality and spirituality. Proc. CHI '10. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2055--2064.
16. Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Bowers, J., Blythe, M., Jarvis, N., Cameron, D., Kerridge, T., Wilkie, A., Phillips, R. and Wright, P. (2011). The photostroller: supporting diverse care home residents in engaging with the world. Proc. CHI '11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1757--1766.
17. Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Law, A., Pennington, S., Bowers, J., Beaver, J., Humble, J., Kerridge, T., Villar, N., & Wilkie, A. Threshold devices. Proc. CHI'08, 2008, 1429--1438.
18. Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Gellerson, H., Pennington, S., Schmidt, A., Steed, A., Villars, N., & Walker, B. (2004). The Drift Table: Designing for ludic engagement. Proc. CHI'04 Design Expo. New York: ACM Press, 885--900.
19. Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Law, A., Pennington, S. and Villar, N. (2006). The history tablecloth: illuminating domestic activity. Proc. DIS '06. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 199--208.
20. Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Kerridge, T., Boucher, A. and Jarvis, N. (2009). Anatomy of a failure: how we knew when our design went wrong, and what we learned from it. Proc. CHI '09. ACM, New York, USA, 2213--2222.
21. Gaver, W., Sengers, P., Kerridge, T., Kaye, J., and Bowers, J. (2007). Enhancing ubiquitous computing with user interpretation: field testing the home health horoscope. Proc. CH '07 ACM 537--546.
22. Gaver W. and Bowers, J. (in press 2012). Annotated Portfolios. To appear in Interactions.
23. Giller, V., Tscheligi, M., Sefelin, R., Mäkelä, A., Puskala, A., and Karvonen, K. Maypole highlights: Image makers. Interactions, 6, 6 (1999), 12--15.
24. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays in Face-to-Face Interaction, Chicago. Aldine.
25. Goodman E, Stolterman E, and Wakkary R (2012) Understanding interaction design practices. Proc. CHI'11 1061--1070.
26. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design Methods: seeds of human futures. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London,.
27. Latour, B. (2004). Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30 (Winter), 225--248.
28. Law, J. (1987). Technology, closure and heterogeneous engineering: the case of the Portuguese expansion. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch T. J. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press.
29. Löwgren J. (2007). Inspirational Patterns for Embodied Interaction. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 20, 165--177.
30. Schoen, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner, how professionals think. New York, Basic Books.
31. Sengers P, Boehner K, David S, and Kaye J. (2005). Reflective design. Proc. AARHUS'05, 49--58. 24
32. Sengers, P. and Gaver, W. Staying open to interpretation: Engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. Proc. DIS06, (2006) pp. 99--108.
33. Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design 2(1), 55--65.
34. Weiser, M. The computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, 265.3, (1991), 94--104.
35. Wensveen, S. A. G., Djajadiningrat, J. P. and Overbeeke, C. J. Interaction Frogger: A Design Framework to Couple Action and Function through Feedback and Feedforward. In Proceedings of DIS, (2004) ACM Press, 177--184.
36. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
37. Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, and Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Proc. CHI'07 493--502.
38. Zimmerman J, Stolterman E, and Forlizzi J (2010). An analysis and critique of research through design: toward a formalization of a research approach. DIS 2010, 310--319.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing