See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221515295

Understanding Interaction Design Practices

Conference Paper · May 2011

DOI: 10.1145/1978942.1979100 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
122 1,946

3 authors:

Elizabeth Goodman Erik Stolterman

University of California, Berkeley Indiana University Bloomington
24 PUBLICATIONS 787 CITATIONS 121 PUBLICATIONS 5,906 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ron Wakkary
Simon Fraser University
230 PUBLICATIONS 2,592 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Augmented Reality in the Eskenazi Museum of Art View project

Tools for Reflection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ron Wakkary on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Understanding Interaction Design Practices
Elizabeth Goodman Erik Stolterman Ron Wakkary
School of Information School of Informatics School of Interactive Arts
University of California, Berkeley and Computing and Technology
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA Indiana University, Bloomington Simon Fraser University
[email protected] Bloomington, IN 47405 USA Surrey, BC Canada V3T 0A3
[email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT particular, the new profession of interaction design.

There is an undesirable gap between HCI research aimed at
influencing interaction design practice and the practitioners Interaction design – the specification of digital behaviors in
in question. To close this gap, we advocate a theoretical and response to human or machine stimuli – is a complex
methodological focus on the day-to-day, lived experience of discipline. Ideally, interaction designers combine
designers. To date, this type of theory-generative, knowledge of technological possibilities of the platforms
experientially oriented research has focused on the users of and systems in play, skilled aesthetic judgment, and
technologies, not the designers. In contrast, we propose that empirically informed empathy with potential users [28, 36].
HCI researchers turn their attention to producing theories of Interaction designers as practitioners work in many arenas
interaction design practice that resonate with practitioners of technology development, from universities and research
themselves. In part one of this paper, we describe the labs to business product groups and small start-ups.
mismatch between HCI research and interaction design Multiple studies have suggested that many frameworks and
practices. Then we present vignettes from an observational theories proposed in HCI research (ie, [34, 43]) have not
study of commercial design practice to illustrate the issues fulfilled creators’ goals of influencing professional design
at hand. In part two, we discuss methodological and practice. We propose this disconnection in part emerges
theoretical changes in research practice that might support from a persistent failure to adequately address the lived
the goal of integrating HCI research with interaction design complexity of design practices. HCI’s research commitment
practices. We then discuss current research methods and to systematic analysis of how people make use of
theories to identify changes that might enlarge our view on technologies is well-known. Yet there has been much less
practice. In part three, we elaborate on our theoretically attention paid to understanding the diversity of
minded agenda and a kind of ideal-type theory. environments in which design takes place. This inattention,
Author Keywords we propose, results from an assumption that the social
Interaction design, practice, theory worlds and epistemological beliefs of the imagined “users”
of HCI theories and frameworks — in particular,
ACM Classification Keywords professional interaction designers — are largely identical to
H5.m [Miscellaneous]; K.4.3 [Organizational Impacts] those of the researchers producing them.
General Terms Interaction design, as a profession, has its own distinct
Human Factors professional associations, publications and conferences1. If
INTRODUCTION we as HCI researchers want to participate in this world, we
In many academic disciplines, one major research goal is will need to broaden our current research agenda. We
influence on practice. The sharing of examples and theories cannot even assess the existence and nature of any gap
of practice fuels education, research, and innovation in without attending more closely to how professional
commercial activity. Indeed, human-computer interaction designers actually work, and how they understand what
(HCI) researchers often describe HCI as an integration of constitute their competence, organizational, and
academic practice and professional practices [3, 18, 32] – in professional roles. A broader research agenda could help
HCI researchers understand and theorize what interaction
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
design is, and present opportunities for HCI research to
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are contribute to a broader range of practices.
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. 1
CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. For example, the Interaction Design Association (IxDA) association and
Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0267-8/11/05....$10.00. annual conference, the interactive track of the South by Southwest
(SXSW) conference, and the American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA).
In this paper, we contend there is a need to produce theories practice. The social sciences, however, suggest more
of designerly practice that are resonant with the everyday diverse notions of practice. This is particularly visible in
work of interaction designers. We believe that empirically research on professionalization [15, 19, 36].
grounded descriptions and critical analyses of design
Green recently argues for a definition of “professional
practice activities will offer frameworks for reflection on
practice” as four “senses” in which the concept can be
practices that designers can find useful. Such a research
understood and operationalized [15]. The first sense is
enterprise could then help create opportunities for HCI
when professional practice is seen as referring to the
researchers to build longterm engagements with design
“practicing of a profession” as in ‘practicing medicine’,
practice that make sense to practitioners.
‘practicing law’, etc. Secondly, the notion can refer to
About this paper practicing professionalism, that is, it has a focus on what it
The paper has three parts. In part one, we summarize two means to be a professional, related to identity and position.
decades of publications that suggest a lack of Thirdly, it can refer to moral-ethical qualities of practice.
synchronization between HCI research and interaction Finally, professional practice can be opposed simply to
design practices. We then argue that many rational and amateur work. However, Green also argues that, in most
scientific theories of design overlook the everyday practices definitions, regardless of “sense”, it all comes down to a
of interaction design. We then move to three vignettes of study and understanding of three aspects, and those are the
everyday interaction design work to demonstrate how activities, experiences, and contexts of practice. Practice
professionals negotiate research questions relevant to becomes the composite of what practitioners do, what they
interaction design practice. experience, and the context where this takes place.
In part two, we discuss changes to the HCI research agenda How then to think about analyzing that composite? We
that might better integrate HCI research and interaction draw on the rich and extensive tradition of “practice theory”
design practices. We divide our discussion between here. Studies of design work have often focused on specific
methodological and theoretical concerns. We examine some and fairly well defined activities, for instance, the processes
current research methods and suggest how they could of idea generation through sketching and brainstorming
change to enlarge our views on practice. Moving to (i.e., [5]). In studying the social shaping of technology,
theoretical frameworks, we then draw out how some current Mackay and Gillespie [25] refer to this orientation as a
theories suggest a kind of ideal-type theory. micro view. Among other approaches it tends to a
In part three, we shift from the goal of researching constructivist understanding of interactions and activities.
interaction design practice to the aim of generating theories Alternatively, they propose a macro orientation that
examines phenomena from an ideological framing and is
of practice. We elaborate the theoretically minded, practice-
broader in its consideration of socio-economic factors.
grounded agenda that we propose. We describe the
opportunity for new theories to provide a language for However, a practice-based perspective on design need not
discussing practice. Such a language would enable oppose macro and micro analyses.
comparison of processes and projects, help support Drawing on Kimbell’s application of practice theory in
practitioners, influence the development of methods, tools design [22], we can see interaction design practice as
and techniques for practice, and help evaluate the theories “carried by individuals” but constituted collectively. That
themselves. is, looking at activities, experiences, and contexts requires
We conclude with the notion that a research agenda for HCI that we look not just at individual minds and bodies, but
practice oriented research would aim toward accounting for also technical systems, organizational structures, tools, and
epistemological orientations, coherent principles that are knowledge [37]. Practice theory prompts us both to
open to critique and debate, and open methods to flexibility examine the embodied effort of designing technologies,
using tools, and learning trades – but also how these
over prescriptions, and lastly but most importantly,
activities are produced by and in turn sustain organizations,
mobilize theoretical ideas in a way that is accessible in
practice and open to revision through practice. systems, and infrastructures.
HCI RESEARCH AND INTERACTION DESIGN
DEFINING PRACTICE
The word “practice” has multiple meanings, and so we will We are not alone in our concern that scholarly HCI research
clarify them before we continue. aimed at influencing professional design practitioners has
fallen short of this goal; nor is this concern recent.
The colloquial meaning of “practice,” as employed by both Publications spanning the last two decades have identified
HCI researchers and professional interaction designers, various gaps between research — whether in universities or
often refers to professional design activities intended to corporate laboratories — and non-research professional
create commercial products, as in articles such as “CHI and work. These publications have diagnosed three main
the Practitioner Dilemma” [1]. This definition of “practice” problems. First, they have portrayed designers as relatively
assumes a division between the interests and perspectives of unaware of scholarly theories and methods [34]. One
university and corporate research and those of professional common complaint describes a lack of “knowledge
transfer” between the HCI research community and that of richly descriptive accounts of creative problem solving. Yet
design work [16, 23, 34]. Second, they have described such studies often lack context by defining design situations
designers as knowledgeable but unlikely to apply those as a well-bounded set of conversations internal to individual
theories or methods because of time, cost, or labor minds or within small teams. Ultimately, we believe that
constraints [16, 43, 47]. Third, they have examined this focus on well-defined cognitive processes also crucially
differences in scholarly researchers’ and commercial limits the analytic scope of the findings. We believe that
practitioners’ perspectives on similar problems, such as this problem – of limiting one’s perspective on where and
designing a user interface [1, 35]. how design complexity comes into play – also helps
disconnect HCI frameworks and interaction design practice.
Notably, in 2004, Rogers identified a “gap between the
demands of doing design and the way theory is These factors suggest some reasons behind the continuing
conceptualized” based on a study of practitioners in the UK complaints within HCI of a division between
and US that analyzed recognition and use of then-common “practitioners” and researchers. Without a shared set of
HCI theoretical frameworks [34]. Assessing the influence references, HCI researchers may treat the complexities of
of theoretical perspectives intended to inform HCI design, design practice as inherent to a mysterious “black art” [46].
she shows that design practitioners have not taken up the Alternately, designers may view HCI researchers as overly
complex analytic frameworks produced for them by oriented to an objectivism anchored in science. Science is
researchers. Instead, what has persisted is “the pervasive only one of many cultural languages and lenses one could
use of a handful of high level concepts,” such as use to construct an understanding of design practice.
“situatedness,” “context,” and “affordances.” “Ironically,” Designers themselves simply may not share the values of
Rogers writes, “it appears that the analytic frameworks objectivity, lack of bias, and a-cultural thinking held by
developed for use in HCI are not that accessible or easy to scientists.
use.” She continues: “It would seem that quite a different
A growing body of research (within and without HCI) has
frame of reference is needed – one which focuses more on
begun to produce a more practice-based perspective on
the process of design and how the different kinds of
design. Drawing on their own practice and on observation
designers, themselves, want to be supported.”
of others, researchers have described design as resting on a
Another factor in the gap between HCI research and form of knowledge that differs from conventional notions
interaction design practices may lie in how some of science. In this approach, successful designers often in
researchers define design complexity. Elsewhere, we have practice value reflexivity, interpretation, and “judgment”
argued at length that HCI research mistakenly treats the above intellectual objectivity [28, 41]. Phrases like the
complexities of design practice as a problem to be reflective practitioner [38], thoughtful designer [24]
scientifically solved [43, 45]. In essence, many researchers designerly knowing [6] mindful learner [20], and ambiguity
assume that commercial designers can and should tackle the [12] instantiate similar notions of a form of knowing
everyday experience of design complexity as they do — specific to design. Design reasoning may be seen as
like scholarly scientists. This has led to a misapplication of improvisation or “artistry,” dealing with the particular, and
scientific reasoning practices to design situations that in only located “in action.” Given this emergence from
turn leads to results (methods, tools, and techniques) that situated reflection, theorists often describe design as an act
design practitioners do not recognize as relevant. of particularity and contingency [22, 28, 38] rather than an
implementation of objective principles or universal
In part, we believe that treating the complexities of different
methods.
sorts of design practices as congruent to the work of
scientists has rationalized away the need to closely examine Our agenda for dealing with the complexities of design
actual design practice. And so it is no surprise that we have draws from this reflective perspective, rather than from a
found so few rigorous, scholarly descriptions of the notion of design as set of objectively graspable problems.
everyday work of interaction design, and even fewer of Design practice complexity should be understood as the
interaction designers’ own understandings of what they do. complexity a designer experiences in a particular design
context [43]. In this view, design complexity emerges
One set of existing descriptions aims not to represent the
within activities of designing, experienced through acts of
fullness of design practice, but to motivate the development
reflection, decision, and judgment. Therefore, the “eye” of
and refinement of methods, techniques, or tools to support
the practicing designer(s) defines it. This definition also
specific design tasks. These studies approach designers as
resonates with the three core aspects of practice that Green
potential technology users [8, 9, 31, 35]. While potentially
proposes (as mentioned earlier), that is, activity, experience,
very helpful in creating and refining task-specific tools, the
and context. Design complexity is experiential. It cannot be
focus on interaction design practitioners as users radically
exclusively an attribute of function, form, or performance,
limits our perspective on how interaction designers
nor of the design problem alone, without considering the
motivate their own actions, decisions, and processes.
activities of designing and the contexts of designers’
Another set of experimental studies aimed at understanding actions.
the cognition of designers (notably, [6]) has resulted in
In summary, we locate the gap between HCI research and interaction design in the 1990s and the solidification of a
interaction design practice in researchers’ distance from professional identity independent of computer science
technology development practices that differ from their through the establishment of university programs,
own. Design practice differs from scientific practice in professional associations, and specialized conferences.
valuing situated reflexivity and in locating complexity in
Despite differences in job description and organizational
experience. Some research tries to define and then solve the
location, participants defined their work similarly: they saw
complexity of design practice through prescriptive
themselves producing representations to guide what will or
frameworks. However, the complexity of design practice is
could be built. These representations included: interaction
emergent, experienced through reflection, judgment and
frameworks, task flows, sitemaps, wireframes, paper
practice in a manner that is synthetic and irreducible. A
prototypes, textual descriptions, technical requirements, and
result of this distance is insufficient interest in and
product specification documents.
examination of the full complexity and richness of
interaction design practice, and to even fewer attempts to Participants typically differentiated themselves both from
theorize it. If we want a shared “frame of reference” the visual designers who craft the “look and feel” of
between HCI theorizing and the practice of design, we will interfaces and deal with questions of emotionality and
need more systematic and close attention to the experiences brand identity – and from the “devs” – the programmers
of the kind of practicing designers who are not already and engineers who build applications and services. Many
represented in HCI. designers saw user research as a part of their job, but not
COMPLEXITY-IN-PRACTICE: STUDYING COMMERCIAL
the heart of it. The two types of work might take place in
INTERACTION DESIGNERS two project phases, or rely on different team members.
In this section, we provide an description and discussion of In both consultancies and corporations, interaction design is
design practice that illustrates some of the ways that organizationally separated from software and hardware
working designers grapple with complex questions of implementation. Designers often have to think like
“good design.” It draws on a six-month study of interaction translators in creating representations accessible to people
designers in San Francisco’s Bay Area. from different educational and professional backgrounds.
The study included in-situ observation of three interaction However, the politics of translating those representations
design projects at two consulting companies, as well as into functional products and services means successful
interviews with eight designers outside the companies. The designers do much more than make wireframes or write
projects generally had one or more interaction designers, specifications. They “manage client expectations” through
visual designers, and design researchers working alongside rounds of meetings, “get buy-in” from stakeholders on
a project manager and perhaps (in consultancies) a client design decisions, negotiate technical decisions with
relationship manager, making a team of about three to five developers, then “socialize” their deliverables by presenting
people. One project lasted six weeks; the other two lasted them to relevant decision-makers.
three months. Accounts of practice: understanding interaction design
The participating consultancies were selected for What do practitioners themselves value in interaction
recognized leadership in the interaction design professional design? In other words, how do they formally or informally
community. They were also chosen as contrasts in validate practice; what language and terms come into play
organizational structure: a young, lightly staffed studio when considering "good and bad practice"; or how, within a
versus an older, larger firm. The interviewees were selected design situation, do appraisals arise for "who is a good or
for individual breadth of technical experience as well as bad designer"? The questions or learned lessons of
overall diversity of organizational location, including interaction design deeply inform these kinds of everyday
consultancies, start-ups, and in-house design teams. All had judgments. And understanding them is important if HCI
experience designing for computer-based applications (web researchers want to support designers’ own aims for their
and desktop software) as well as mobile applications. The work. In this section, we describe how these sorts of
majority of study participants were in the middle of their questions arise and get answered during the course of
careers, with seven to 16 years of professional experience. project work. We hope here to illustrate the importance of
the workaday conversations and decision-making that
Many of the older designers had little formal training; they currently rarely appear in HCI research.
often described their first years as “learning on the job.”
Account One: Shortcut – optimal versus realistic
Participants in their late 30s and 40s could often pinpoint a
We begin at a workshop intended to prioritize features for a
year in which they first used the phrase “interaction design”
mobile rail ticket booking application. The project lead has
to describe what they did. Participants in their 20s and early
scheduled an hour for her clients to place 50 post-it notes,
30s often had interaction design degrees, or had received
each with a short description of a piece of functionality, on
early training through college internships. None attended —
a whiteboard. The designers will use discussion about the
or wanted to attend — CHI or other ACM conferences,
positioning of the post-it notes to establish client priorities.
though one had an undergraduate degree in computer
science. Their professional biographies echo the growth of
As the clients place post-its, the project leader leaves them Lead designer: This could be a stepping-stone to lots of
to talk to the researcher. Unasked, she quietly explains the other projects. That could be a shared goal as well. This is
logic behind this exercise. For her, there is an “optimal way a project to get more projects.
of doing things” and a “realistic” way. She would prefer to Project manager: It’s potentially about future work,
have the clients “sorting [potential features] by business and additional work.
user priorities separately,” and then sorting by technical
Lead designer: [to the team’s user researcher] You seem
feasibility. Instead, pressed for time by her clients’ tight excited about this.
travel schedule, she took a “shortcut.” This is, she points
out, not the first shortcut she has had to take on this project: User researcher: That should be the measure of success of
all projects.
Project leader: Sometimes you have to take some shortcuts
just because it’s hard not to. Language and levels of practice
In account one it was so important for the designer to tell
Researcher: Why? the researcher about how this workshop differed from the
Project leader: Because of time constraints. But it doesn’t ideal method that she voluntarily stopped interacting with
get all the information we ideally could have gotten if her clients. “Optimal” and “realistic” seem like objective
everyone sat down and discussed it together. concepts, but they actually refer to situational, negotiated
Ten minutes later, the prioritization exercise is complete. judgments within the context of the project. What’s optimal
The project lead will use its results to generate a feature set for one schedule may be more realistic for another. Thus,
for the application – which they hope will have thousands the shortcut draws on professional judgment about the
of users within three months. importance of having a face-to-face negotiation with
clients. To someone who does not share the lead’s concern
Account two: A choice between two kinds of good design for satisfying client priorities while keeping the project on
A designer is discussing a weekly client “check-in”: schedule, the rationale for her shortcut will be hard to see.
Designer: I brought two options to the table – one that’s Where the designer in account one used precise, seemingly
more simple but utilitarian and one that we’ve been talking objective language to describe her situational tradeoffs, the
about. We wanted to show both to the client and get their
designer in account two points to concepts that are tangibly
reactions but the less utilitarian one might be a little more
interesting and playful in the end. present to him, but lacks precise language to explain them.
In other words, he describes the relative qualities of the two
Researcher: And that’s good? options (“utilitarian” versus “interesting and playful”). But
Designer: Yeah, that’s <pauses> good. […] I mean, I was when it comes time to explaining what characteristics make
erring on the very usable simple side but there’s some one design more appropriate than another, he fumbles for
question about whether that’s the most appropriate thing. words and uses an internal team metaphor – the “hooks.”
Of course, the actual disposition of the project – whether it
Researcher: Why?
takes the more utilitarian or the more playful direction – is
Designer: Just I mean I guess it has a little bit to do with not up to the designer. With the support of his team lead, he
the hooks and just kind of making this not feel like it’s has presented two options to the clients to choose between.
work.
The research orientation of the two accounts discussed
The “hooks” are the pleasurable and entertaining above involves analyzing what designers make and how
experiences that the project lead wants to induce at various designers make within the day-to-day, lived experience of
points in the mobile rail ticket booking application. The practice. Account three illustrates how factors beyond the
lead is concerned, as the designer suggests, that the daily activities of making things impinge on the problem-
application will “feel like it’s work” and not be enjoyable solving processes of design – thus interweaving what have
enough for users (likely be on vacation) to want to use. been called macro factors. There, three people in different
Account three: Defining project-wide success roles – interaction design, user research, and project
The team is sitting at a conference table. It is the second management – agree that one of the main ways to evaluate
week of what will be a 12-week project. The lead designer the project’s success is whether it wins the company more
has scheduled this meeting to answer a question raised by a work. That is – the success of the project may not lie
colleague: “how do you measure success?” When asked, exclusively in what is designed but also in the
the lead designer realized that the team had never discussed organizational relationships forged by the design process.
metrics for evaluating the project. “Well,” he begins,
Though formal evaluation and explicit theorizing were not
“besides making the client happy, which we’re all assuming
often present in the design practices we studied,
is a goal.” As the other team members talk, he summarizes
assessments occur regularly throughout the process of
their points on the whiteboard: “makes client happy”;
designing. Those assessments rest on implicit theories of
“having a solid point of view”; “looks hot”; “something
good design. And theories, whether partially formed, ill
they [the client] use.” That last point prompts this
informed or individually held. are always in operation. The
exchange:
question for HCI researchers is therefore not of generously
providing theories to people with none. Instead, it is of how researcher present himself or herself as a member of the
to study the work of interaction designers in order to inform design group being studied?
both design practice and HCI research by making
These two approaches can lead to significant findings on
designers’ existing theorizing external and visible.
interaction design practices. However, we also advocate for
Making design practice an object of HCI research along an expansion to HCI’s more usual methodological toolkit to
with technology use will help create explicit theorizing. It include reported practice, anecdotal descriptions, and first-
can help make accessible new forms of design evaluation or person research.
it can help articulate and demystify approaches like
Reported practice
critiques or socio-economic factors. We do not mean
Reporting on practices by interviewing designers is a long-
theories that prescribe rigid guidelines of quality. Rather, standing approach in the wider design fields. More recently,
we mean theories that would acknowledge the inseparable HCI and interaction design research venues have accepted
interpretive aspects of evaluation, which in large part rely it. For example, in an informal set of interviews [43], the
on experiences and judgments of designers. Theories of authors observed how students used theories, methods, and
practice would help lay the groundwork for interpretation instruments as tools for design. Additionally, Zimmerman
by addressing the need for mutual intelligibility of et al based an analysis of research through design on
language, terms and concepts that are the materials of interviews with a dozen HCI design researchers [48].
debate in asking questions of quality.
Anecdotes, stories, and cases
RESEARCHING PRACTICE: EXTENDING HCI In some respects, descriptions of authors’ design processes
RESEARCH METHODS AND THEORIES
through descriptive anecdotes, stories or slightly more
In this section, we look to current methods of research and
formal case studies have together contributed the most to
theories related to practice and how we can extend and
giving insights into design practice in HCI. A good example
improve upon them.
is Gaver et al’s account of the design of the Prayer
Extending the methodology toolkit Companion, an electronic resource for a group of cloistered
Studying practice, especially professional practice, is not a nuns [13]. In another example, Wolf et al provide an
straightforward endeavor; its complexity suits a range of account of their design of Rendezvous, a conferencing
approaches and methods. The methods we discuss are not application as an illustration for how designers can
entirely new to HCI – indeed, some are quite familiar. Our communicate their “intellectual rigor to the CHI
aim is to argue that these methods should be applied not community” [46].
just to study user experiences of technology but also
First-person research
interaction designers’ experience of their own work. We are
This approach aims at an intentional accounting of practice
convinced that experiential approaches to user experience
that situates the designer reflexively as both the primary
could and should be applied to the study of design practice.
informant and researcher. For example, Wakkary provides a
We are not advocating any particular method. Instead we description and analysis of his own interaction design
believe that interaction design practice as a new form of project ec(h)o, a tangible audio museum guide, as a way to
professional practice needs to a diverse set of research explain design complexity [45]. Similarly, Gaver’s first-
methods, each bringing complementary aspects and person account of the design of Video Window, a video
perspectives to an overall understanding. screen in his bedroom showing the skyline from outside his
window, allowed the author through simultaneously living
Earlier, we cited Rogers’s identification of a “gap between with and continually designing the system to analyze the
the demands of doing design and the way theory is intermingling aesthetic, utilitarian, and design issues of
conceptualised” based on a survey of practitioners in the both creating and experiencing the system [13].
UK and US [34]. Vredenburg et al published a similar study
based on surveys that examined user-centered design and The approaches we suggest are by no means
professional practice [47]. Mixed method surveys provide comprehensive. They are nascent in their evolution and use
an empirical and quantitative picture of the state of the field within HCI research. As part of the agenda to expand the
of design practice, and as a method it holds clear credibility repertoire of methods, we suggest some changes. Reported
within the HCI community. practice, as a method, raises questions about the status of
the interview participants as experts. Should these designers
In our study of interaction design consultancies reported in
remain anonymous, as is typical in user studies (i.e., [48]),
this paper, we utilized participant observation. In-situ data or does identifying individual participants provide
collection similar to our own study is a mainstay approach provenance and context for the data? Both are issues that
to understanding the fullness of practice. It is a well- affect credibility of the data. In anecdotes, stories, and
accepted method within HCI based on the contributions of cases how do we move from unintentional descriptions of
CSCW and workplace studies (such as [8]) and so holds practice to intentional and purposeful explanations that
similar credibility within the community as mixed-methods provide insights into research matters, as in the discussion
surveys. Moreover, it can push the researcher to confront
Gaver et al provide with the Prayer Companion? And do
issues of belonging and expertise: to what extent can the
designers themselves gain credibility to science-oriented types of theories are better suited for interaction design
audiences through a reflective, self-critical first-person practice? In this section we look at recent theories now
account? This is a critical concern for first-person research. largely used in HCI to examine the experiences of people
with new technologies. While not fully serving the needs of
However, research on design practice can draw from
a theory for interaction design practice, they are critical
existing traditions of first-person qualitative research such
antecedents.
as anthropology and phenomenology. Specifically, they can
use techniques of bracketing or epoche [29] to make Activity theory, a theory of situated development and
explicit the researcher’s perceptions and expectations prior consciousness of the user, relates strongly to technology
to commencing the research with the expectation of and informs design situations, its structures, and
comparing these assumptions to the later findings. relationships. Though it does not provide a theory of
Researchers can explicitly consider how and why their practice, it can help us imagine a theory of interaction
perspective on the world is situated, embodied, and partial – design practice. Kaptelinin and Nardi’s Acting with
not a “view from nowhere” but part of “working relations” Technology [21] is a good example of theory that aims to be
that enable them to conduct and publish research [44]. descriptive, explanatory, and generative. Kaptelinin and
Nardi discuss activity theory as a basis for revisionary
Our discussion has centered on data collection methods, yet
critique of HCI. In it, they see the descriptive capacity to
these methods bring with them researcher commitments
provide a new set of key concepts and definitions, and the
aimed to ensure the integrity of the data and analysis, and to
explanatory capacity to redefine relationships and processes
maximize the potential for translation of the findings to
within HCI. They draw on Ben Shneiderman’s notion [42]
other similar situations of design practice. For example,
that generative theories facilitate creativity, invention, and
participant observation commits to expressing the
discovery. Activity theory is generative in a theoretical
observations and findings in the informant’s or studied
sense in that it creates ongoing conceptual development
group’s own language. In many respects, this commitment
within HCI. We see the need for theories of equal ambition
to representing research participants on their own terms
that describe, explain, and ultimately generate ideas and
underlies all the methods we discussed, with the exception
actions of design practice that resonate with the activities of
of the quantitative aspects of mixed methods survey.
designers.
Theorizing interaction design practices
We advocate for increased research into the practices of McCarthy and Wright’s Technology as Experience [27],
interaction design with the benefit of explicit theorizing of while also not a theory of interaction design, provides a
the findings. Research that leads to theory will help pragmatist notion of generative theories that is potentially
translatable to design practice. McCarthy and Wright’s
interaction design share a common intellectual foundation
theory of user experience revises HCI theory by drawing on
with HCI research and vice versa. Such theoretical
foundations would make it possible for researchers to the pragmatist ideas of Dewey and the linguistics of
compare and contrast their findings. A theoretical novelist Mikhail Bakhtin. McCarthy and Wright re-theorize
foundation is by no means a monolithic solution. Instead we the notion of user experience to include the emotional,
look forward to developing a shared “language” or frame of intellectual, and sensual aspects of interactions with
reference that would enable researchers to accept and/or technology, arguing in the pragmatist sense that we live
advocate ongoing critical reflection and rethinking of with technology rather than simply use it. From a
foundational assumptions about design practice. pragmatist viewpoint, theory is by definition generative. It
is a systematic inquiry for imagining a possible future. For
We have argued that there has been little theorizing of a pragmatist, theorizing is a necessary and practical
interaction design practices within HCI. However, it is consequence of living or approaching one’s life such that
important to remember that design fields, including theory changes one’s world rather than represents it.
interaction design, have often resisted the type of McCarthy and Wright discuss how Dewey’s criticism of
abstractions and formalizations that constitute theories. An scientific theory as retrospective, concerned with describing
earlier relationship to craft still heavily influences design and explaining the world as it is, rather than prospective,
practice [33]. Within the craft tradition, explicit theorizing concerned with how the world might become. The authors
about practice is not common or valued. The craft tradition argue that their generative view is “valued not so much for
treats hands-on, everyday practice as something that can whether it provides a true or false representation of the
only be understood by doing it, by being a practitioner [33]. world as for whether it helps us think through relationships
between for example, people, technology, and design.” We
We have also argued that the lack of theory generated from
believe that a similar approach to the specifics of design
within interaction design practice leaves HCI’s relationship
practice — instead of user experience — might be highly
to practice vulnerable. Without a set of frameworks against
valuable.
which to position their own contributions, scholarly
research can easily assume an objectivity-oriented Participatory design (PD) is perhaps the best example of a
perspective we earlier described as ill suited to designers generative theory that attempts to take on design in its
more focused on critical judgment and reflection. So what fullness, including everyday practice. Participatory design
emerged from socio-technical concerns regarding the a new theory seems highly improbable. An ideal theory
design and use of information systems in organizations [10, could however result in greater awareness of the utmost
17, 40]. Ehn’s vision for technology development complexity and richness of design practice as a human
emphasizes embodied knowledge, mutual learning, and the endeavor. Therefore, the first measure of success for
active roles of different groups [10]. The basis of Ehn’s theorizing practice should not be changed practice. Rather,
notion of participation is a shared understanding of the it should be a combination of goals: the degree to which
design needs between designers and skilled workers. In design researchers can articulate and publish research on
order to create something new, designers must bridge the design practice, and the degree to which theoretical
different languages, tacit knowledge, and past experiences descriptions make design practice more accessible to
that lie between them and stakeholders. Ehn phrased this as interdisciplinary research, to critical and emancipatory
“the dialectics of tradition and transcendence – that is what examinations, to comparison and contrasting with other
design is all about.” practices, and to professional reflection. Overall, we argue
for the criteria of rationality resonance [43], in which
Participatory design offers a set of theoretical tools for the
theories are grounded and recognizable from the
practice of design and for the generation of design actions
perspective within practice. Initially we propose:
and outcomes. PD stands out as a relatively coherent and
effective theory about and for design practice. Ehn in Descriptive: We see descriptions of practice as the origin of
particular provides a theoretical context for PD based on theorizing practice. The aim is to provide legitimate, rich
Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Marx that offers a rationale accounts of practice from which to begin developing a
and basis for further elaboration on techniques and common language and identifying mutually intelligible
principles incorporated into information systems design. areas of interests and needs. Accurate descriptions of
The principles afford an articulation of techniques and goals practice benefit both core and broadly interdisciplinary
for participatory design that mobilize the theory into a form researchers/practitioners whose interest is in design. We
serviceable in design practice – a rationality resonance encourage active acknowledgement that practice is multi-
between theory and practice [43]. PD focuses on the leveled and can be understood along a constructivist to
relationship between designers and end-users, devoting a ideological continuum or micro to macro scale.
large degree of its efforts on articulating how designers
Explanatory: Drawing from the preceding discussion, an
interact with end-users. It does not revise core concepts in
ideal theory for interaction design should establish critical
how design occurs; rather it critiques scientific accounts of
concepts, principles and definitions. It should also provide
the user by offering a design perspective from users. It falls
an explanation of the relationships, actions, actors, and
short of offering a mode of validation or self-reflection —
processes within interaction design. This form of theory
ultimately the mechanism to critique and evolve theories. In
enables deeper analytical work. Analytical rigor based in
consequence, it articulates little about the communication of
evidentiary reasoning is a necessary criterion. Explanatory
PD research outcomes and PD’s interactions with other
research helps close the gap between HCI research and
disciplines. Yet it is a powerful precursor to thinking about
interaction design practice by strengthening clear,
practice in interaction design.
analogous, and like concepts, as well as establishing new
THEORIES OF PRACTICE? knowledge as credible across the communities.
Throughout this paper we have argued that research into
interaction design practices can increase the practical Generative: Coherent principles drawn from explanatory or
relevance of HCI frameworks in general and lead to descriptive approaches may guide the development of
theorizing of interaction design practices. It will never be research methods, design methods, and evaluation methods.
possible or desirable to establish an ideal, complete theory This creates flexibility and experimentation in methods that
of interaction design practice. Nor is there agreement on avoid the prescriptive approaches of the past. The
what that would be like. Instead, the purpose of this section philosophical difference in a generative form is that
is to start the discussion about what would characterize a theorizing is a necessary and practical consequence of
well-grounded and useful theory of practice. practice and focuses on how practitioners can shape the
world through practice. A generative theory leads to an
To begin, we have drawn from previous theories the need understanding of future possibilities or inventions in
for a theory to be descriptive, explanatory, generative and interaction design and guides us in determining the value of
reflexive. If theorizing practice produces a unique type of each possibility. The forward orientation is best suited for
theory, than the measures of success would differ as well. design and would move HCI theorizing away from
Theories for practice usually aim to be generative. In HCI exclusive reliance on retrospective accounts of interaction
research, theories often result in, or at least try to influence, phenomena – a key benefit for the purpose of bridging HCI
changes in design practice and outcomes. However, this is research and interaction design practice cultures.
hard to measure. Any form of validation would inevitably
be interpretive and results would only be possible to Critical/reflexive: Make explicit and open to question
measure over very long periods. Therefore, to detect, epistemological orientations within the theorizing. An
capture, and measure direct and immediate consequences of underlying philosophical grounding appropriate to design
will guide the development of core concepts and defining REFERENCES
principles. However, these concepts and principles need to 1. Arnowitz, J. and Dykstra-Erickson, E. 2005. CHI and
constantly be open to critique and revisions. In addition, a the practitioner dilemma. interactions 12(4), 5-9.
reflexive theory grounded in practice will help mobilize 2. Bellotti, V. 1988. Implications of current design practice
theoretical ideas and actions in a way that is accessible in for the use of HCI techniques. In Proc. 4th Conference
practice and open to revision through practice. of the British Computer Society on People and
It is important to underline the interactions between the Computers. Cambridge UP, 13-34.
forms of theorizing in order to address practice. It will be 3. Bucciarelli, L. 1994. Designing engineers. The MIT
more likely that theories of practice will be inclusive of all Press.
forms rather than separate theories with different
4. Carroll, John M. 2009. Human Computer Interaction
approaches.
(HCI). In Interaction Design Encyclopedia. Retrieved on
CONCLUSION June 6, 2010 from http://www.interaction-design.org/
In this paper, we have argued that HCI lacks research and encyclopedia/human_computer_interaction_hci.html.
theorizing about interaction design practice. In response, we 5. Clemmensen, T. and Leisner, P. 2002. Community
propose more frequent and more intensive studies of knowledge in an emerging online professional
interaction design practice, development of theories of community: the interest of theory among Danish
interaction design practice, and validation of new theories usability professionals. IRIS’25.
based on how well they resonate with existing practices.
6. Cross, N. 2006. Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.
We examined existing potential theories, and illustrated the
7. Day, C. 2000. Effective Leadership and Reflective
intricacy and complexity of practice in three vignettes. We
Practice. Reflective Practice: International and
discussed the requirements from a methodological and
Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 1(1), 113-127.
theoretical point of view for the field to improve when it
comes to understanding practice. We concluded by 8. Diggins, T. and Tolmie, P. 2003. The 'adequate' design
reflecting on the requirements for an “ideal” theory of of ethnographic outputs for practice: some explorations
interaction design practice. of the characteristics of design resources. Personal
Ubiquitous Comput., 7(3-4) 147-158.
In conclusion, we want to clarify what we see as the
straightforward argument that this paper as its overall 9. Dow, S., Saponas, T.S., Li, Y., and Landay, J.A. 2006.
contribution: that a solid understanding of existing practice External representations in ubiquitous computing design
must ground research aimed at supporting interaction and the implications for design tools. Proc DIS ’06,
design practice. HCI research on users offers a clear ACM Press, 241-250.
counterpart that must be matched theoretically, otherwise 10. Ehn, P. 1990. Work-Oriented Design of Computer
interaction design practice will continue to be eclipsed and Artifacts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
under-theorized. Underlying the theoretical depth of much
11. Fallman, D. 2008. The Interaction Design Research
HCI research is a shared epistemological grounding in
Triangle of Design Practice, Design Studies, and Design
science and empirical study. With agreement on core
Exploration. Design Issues. 24(3) 4-18.
concepts, the concepts are open to revisions and subject to
vigorous and critical debate that grows the field 12. Gaver, B., Beaver, J. and Benford, S. 2003. Ambiguity
intellectually. This strength in focus and epistemology as a resource for design. In Proc CHI’03, ACM Press,
creates coherence around principles that in turn allow for 233-240.
flexibility and experimentation with methods of research, 13. Gaver, W. 2006. The video window: my life with a ludic
validation, and the means to verify claims. Further, HCI system. Pers. and Ubiq. Computing. 10(2): 60-65.
research has mobilized a theoretical understanding through
14. Gaver, W., et al. 2010. The prayer companion: openness
communication and flexibility of methods. In many
respects, interaction design practice research needs to match and specificity, materiality and spirituality. In Proc. CHI
’10. ACM Press, 2055-2064.
this standard in its own theory-making about its practice.
An “ideal” theory can never exist – but our hope is that in 15. Green, B. 2009. Introduction: Understanding and
raising an initial set of criteria, we can move closer to a researching professional practice, in Green, B. (ed).
theorizing that is useful to its potential constituencies: Understanding and researching professional practice.
researchers and designers. Sense Publishers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 16. Green, T.R.G., Davies, S.P., and Gilmore, D.J. 1996.
Research contributing to this paper was funded by a Delivering Cognitive Psychology to HCI: The Problems
National Foundation Graduate Fellowship and an Intel of Common Language and of Knowledge Transfer.
Corporation PhD Fellowship. Interacting with Computers 8(1), 89-111.
 17. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. 1991. Design at work: 33. Risatti, H. 2007. A theory of craft: function and
Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence aesthetic expression. UNC Press Books.
Erlbaum Associates. 34. Rogers, Y. 2004. New Theoretical approaches for
18. Hewett et al. 1996. ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human- Human-Computer Interaction. ARIST. 38, 87-143.
Computer Interaction. Retrieved on September 21, 2010 35. Rosson, M. B., Kellogg, W., & Maass, S. 1988. The
from http://old.sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html. designer as user: building requirements for design tools
19. Humphreys, M. & Hyland, T. (2002). Theory, Practice from design practice. Commun. ACM, 31(11), 1288-1298.
and Performance in Teaching: Professionalism,
36. Saffer, D. 2006. Designing for Interaction: Creating
intuition, and jazz. Educational Studies, 28(1), 5-15. Smart Applications and Clever Devices. Peachpit Press.
20. Kelley, D. and Hartfield, B. 1996. The Designer’s Stance.
37. Schatzki, T.R. 2001. Practice theory. In The practice turn in
In Bringing Design to Software. Ed. Terry Winograd.
contemporary theory. Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr
Addison-Wesley. Retrieved on September 21 from
Cetina, and Eike von Savigny (eds.), 10-23. Routledge.
http://hci.stanford.edu/bds/8-kelley.html.
38. Schön, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how
21. Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B.A. 2006. Acting with
professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design.
The MIT Press. 39. Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner.
Jossey-Bass.
22. Kimbell, L. 2009. Beyond design thinking: Design-as-
practice and designs-in practice. Paper presented at the 40. Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. 1993. Participatory
CRESC Conference, Manchester, September 2009. Design: Principles and Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
23. Latour, B. 2008. A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps
Toward a Philosophy of Design. Keynote lecture for the 41. Sengers, P. and Gaver, B. 2006. Staying open to
Design History Society. Falmouth, Cornwall. interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design
and evaluation. In Proc DIS '06, ACM Press, 99-108.
24. Löwgren, J. and Stolterman, E. 2007. Thoughtful
Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on 42. Shneiderman, B. 2002. Leonardo's laptop : human needs
Information Technology. The MIT Press. and the new computing technologies. The MIT Press.
25. Mackay, H. and Gillespie, G. 1992. Extending the Social 43. Stolterman, E. 2008. The Nature of Design Practice and
Shaping of Technology Approach: Ideology and Implications for Interaction Design Research.
Appropriation. Social Studies of Science 22(4), 685 -716. International Journal of Design 2(1), 55-65.
26. Mao, J., et al. 2005. The state of user-centered design 44. Suchman, L. 1994. Working relations of technology
practice. Commun. ACM 48(3), 105-109. production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative
Work 2(1-2), 21-39.
27. McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. 2007. Technology as
Experience. The MIT Press. 45. Wakkary, R. 2005. Framing Complexity, Design and
Experience: A Reflective Analysis. Digital Creativity.
28. Moggridge, B. Designing Interactions. 2007. The MIT 16(2), 65-78.
Press,.
46. Wolf, T.V., Rode, J.A., Sussman, J., and Kellogg, W.A.
29. Moustakas, C.E. 14. Phenomenological research 2006. Dispelling "design" as the black art of CHI. In
methods. Sage. Proc. CHI ’06. ACM Press, 521-530.
30. Nelson, H.G. and Stolterman, E. 2002. The Design Way: 47. Vredenburg, K., Mao, J., Smith, P. W., and Carey, T.
Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World : 2002. A survey of user-centered design practice. In
Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence. Proc. CHI ’02. ACM Press, 471-478.
Educational Technology Publications.
48. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Evenson, S. 2007.
31. Newman, M.W. and Landay, J.A. 2000. Sitemaps, Research through design as a method for interaction
Storyboards, and Specifications: A Sketch of Web Site design research in HCI. In Proc CHI ’07, ACM Press,
Design Practice. Proc. DIS 2000. ACM Press, 263-274. 493-502.
32. Preece, J; Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. eds. 2002.
Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer
Interaction. John Wiley.

View publication stats