1 / 22

Lecture 3: Representation

Lecture 3: Representation. Jarmo Sarkkinen. Means of design. Representation: Dictionary definitions. 1. The act of representing or the state of being represented. 2. Something that represents, as: a. An image or likeness of something.

ion
Download Presentation

Lecture 3: Representation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Lecture 3:Representation Jarmo Sarkkinen

  2. Means ofdesign

  3. Representation: Dictionary definitions 1. The act of representing or the state of being represented. 2. Something that represents, as: a. An image or likeness of something. b. An account or statement, as of facts, allegations, or arguments. c. An expostulation; a protest. d. A presentation or production, as of a play. 3. The state or condition of serving as an official delegate, agent, or spokesperson. 4. The right or privilege of being represented by delegates having a voice in a legislative body. 5. A body of legislators that serve on behalf of a constituency. 6. Law A statement of fact made by one party in order to induce another party to enter into a contract. 7. Mathematics A homomorphism from an algebraic system to a similar system of matrices.

  4. Representation (as defined by Hall) • In the studies of culture • Using language to say something meaningful about the world to other people in a meaningful way • Each of the reflective, intentional and constructionist notions of representations emphasizes one particular sort of relationship to meanings attached to objects of change • Differences between design cultures mean differences between meanings attached to objects of change within different cultures • E.g. design specification: data flows vs. working procedures

  5. Inuit terms ice = siku broken _ = siqumniq ice water = immiugaq candle _ = illauyiniq flat _ = qairniq glare _ = quasaq piled _ = ivunrit rough_ = ivvuit slush_ = quna young_ = sikuliaq

  6. The constructionist view ”In the constructionist perspective, representation involves making meaning by forging links between three different orders of things: what we might broadly call the world of things, people, events and experiences; the conceptual world – the mental concepts we carry around in our heads; and the signs, arranged into languages, which ’stand for’ or communicate these concepts”

  7. Representation(as defined by Potter) • For social psychologists • Representation = description • ”A central feature of any description is categorization; a description formulates some object or event as something; it constitutes it as a thing, and a thing with specific qualities” • The description presents something as good or bad, big or small, more violent or less violent, although often with more subtle options • Describing a reporter as a hack or a journalist

  8. Classification(Bowker & Star 1999) • ”A spatial, temporal, or spatio-temporal segmentation” of objects of change • ≠ ’surface structure’ of objects • Systems of classifications • Categories of these systems are mutually exclusive? • Systems are complete? • Classifications help to include and exclude some meanings in the processes of meaning making • Complete systems of classifications are rare • More implicit classifiers matter (each word I say)

  9. Representation(as defined by Kyng) • In the studies of design • Representations capture intentionally selected qualities of that which is represented and nothing more • Inadequate representations or lack of experience in using representations may lead to unexpected difficulties and confusion • Use of representations in cooperative design efforts

  10. Cooperative work and representations • Understanding possibilities and limitations with respect to objects of change in the ’multicultural’ team • Enable cooperation between users and designers • Enable hands-on explorations • Enable to represent experience with both work and technical possibilities and limitations • Both users and designers need to ”share” representations of design

  11. Representations of the future system • Mock-ups and prototypes • Represent interfaces • Represent the structure and content of the system (e.g. a work plan or a patient record) • When users are carrying out work • No need for technical expertise by users • Concepts with ”family resemblance” • Need to be grounded in work practices of end users

  12. Representations of work 1) Work situation descriptions (current work situations) • Imply needs grounded on current work situations and enable so called ’revisits’ to current but ever changing work situations 2) Use scenarios (future-oriented) • Represent emerging designs • Indicate how new computer support and changes in work may improve work situations • Recreate and describe a new context for trial

  13. Task outliner mock-up

  14. Mediatory function of representations • They mediate ”the relation between designers and their products, between designers in a team, between the design team and other design teams, and between the design team and the future users” [Bødker 1998] • They mediate construction, that is, the productive relation between team members and objects of change • They mediate cooperation, that is, the representational relation between team members • They mediate conceptualization, that is, the dialectical relation between team members and objects of change [Adapted from Bertelsen 2000]

  15. Examples of representations(Benyon 2002)

  16. Three approaches for coming together around representations • DESIGNER – representation – user (D-R-U) • USER – representation – designer (U-R-D) • Multiple participants – multiple representations

  17. Approach #1 • Human relations vs. tools (and technology) • Design models with user classifications • Empowerment of users: with users, neither for nor by them • Design by doing => mutual learning • Lead by users??? • Whose viewpoint emphasized???

  18. Approach #2 • E.g. usability trials, as seen by Woolgar (1991) • An evolving technology sets ’parameters’ for user action • Framing ”The User” and the relationship between this user and an evolving technology • How a technology should be ’read’ • To configure a user is to ”define, enable and constrain” this user and to produce a configured relationship of this user to an evolving technology • What is a normal and what is a bizarre user? • Lead by both??? • In fact, the user and the designer configure each other

  19. Approach #3 ”3D” D ifferent viewpoints => D ealing with diversity => D ecision making based on multiple viewpoints

  20. Differentreadings andinterpretationsofrepresentations(Robinson 1991a)

  21. Double level language(Robinson 1991b) • Not only computer applications but also representations of design during evolution of applications should support at least two levels of language: 1) Formal level (higly restrictive) 2) Cultural level (more flexible) • Participants always need to interpret representations as they encounter each other around them • Understanding, interpreting, and changing ”items” at the formal level of language used in representation is mediated by conversation at the ”cultural” level of language

  22. (Human-) Representation - Human • Multitude of readings possible • Representations just plans, then interpreted in action • How much do representations close inside them? Best Better No good interprets sufficient for one meanings

More Related